Donald Trump-ez hitz bi

EH Bildu felicita a Donald Trump con una carta al embajador de EE UU

(https://www.elcorreo.com/bizkaia/politica/201611/22/bildu-felicita-donald-trump-20161121222051.html)

Erabat galdurik!

oooooo

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

ooo

Full Interview: Edward Snowden On Trump, Privacy, And Threats To Democracy | The 11th Hour | MSNBC

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yK1QndJSM

On the eve of his memoir ‘Permanent Record’ being published, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden talked at length from Moscow with MSNBC’s Brian Williams in an exclusive interview. This is their discussion in its entirety, edited down slightly for clarity.

Aired on 2019(e)ko ira. 17

Transkripzioa:

0:00

so add Snowden a lot of people in this country are probably curious when was

0:05

the last time you had substantive discussions about coming home to the

0:11

United States and would this still be your preference do you still refer to it

0:16

as home the United States will always be

0:22

my home and I’ll always be willing to come back on a single condition and I’ve

0:29

been quite clear about this over the years this is that the government guarantee that I have the right and

0:35

every whistleblower has the right to tell the jury why they did what they did right we can disagree about whether this

0:43

was right or wrong we can disagree about whether this is good or bad we can disagree about whether this is legal early illegal that’s right and proper in

0:50

a democracy but we have to agree that the jury is supposed to be the proper

0:55

authority to ultimately decide was this right or wrong and I hate to say it but under current laws that is explicitly

1:03

forbidden under the Espionage Act which as you know it’s increasingly being used against the sources of journalism

1:10

instead of foreign spies the law makes no distinction between someone who tells

1:16

a secret to a journalist and someone who tells a secret to a foreign government and and so yeah there have nots there

1:23

has not been any movement unfortunately on that conversation since the Obama administration when I told that the

1:32

government that all they need to do is give me the right of what we call a public interest offense this is a fair

1:38

trial an open trial where the jury hears what is happening and they decide was this justified or not and unfortunately

1:47

a then Attorney General Eric Holder responded and said we can’t promise that we won’t promise that we will promise

1:54

not to torture you unfortunately I’d say that’s not quite enough something you’ve

2:01

said repeatedly is that you would expect and you would accept a certain

2:07

punishment for your actions what if that package of punishment in

2:13

working for the home team what if someone said help us harden our elections from attack using your skills

2:20

I would volunteer for that instantly you

2:26

know they they wouldn’t even have to pay me for that remember I volunteered to work for the CIA

2:32

for the NSA when I came forward to reveal mass surveillance which we need to be clear the courts have found was in

2:39

fact unlawful on the part of the government and one court said likely unconstitutional so I have no objection

2:49

to helping the government I came forward not to burn the NSA down I came forward

2:54

to reform it to help it return to the ideals that we’re all supposed to share

2:59

so there will never be a question of when my government is ready when my government wants me to help I will be

3:05

there how has your opinion changed about mr.

3:11

Putin since you’ve been in Russia well I

3:16

don’t think it really has changed because the question might presume that I had a positive opinion at some point I

3:24

think everyone would agree probably including the Russian President himself that he is an authoritarian leader I

3:31

think the Russian government broadly does not have a good record on human rights and that hasn’t changed how odd

3:38

is it to you that while you’ve been there consensus here has hardened that

3:45

they are the actors who interfered in our last presidential election I don’t

3:53

think that’s especially surprising there was a story published in The New York

3:59

Times actually reporting on a study in February of 2018 and was also done in

4:04

the Washington Post a few months prior to that about the record of electoral

4:10

interference and they looked at the history of Russia and the Soviet Union and an electoral Intel interference by

4:17

intelligence agencies and they found I think 36 different cases of electoral

4:23

interference over roughly the past 50 years but then they also looked at the United States intelligence services and found

4:30

that we hit enter feared in foreign elections eighty-one different times now

4:35

this is not to say one is better than the other it’s not about that it’s about budget about capability but we do what

4:42

we do see from this is that what happened in 2016 actually was not

4:47

unusual from the perspective of intelligence agencies this is what they believe are they are hired to do what we

4:55

have to do is find out how to secure our systems against the attacks that we know

5:01

are inevitable something you’ve been asked before something you have answered before but since this is a fresh

5:08

occasion we’ll will ask it again why not stay in this country and face the music

5:14

if you believed in the strength of your conviction this is a great question

5:21

Brian and I’m glad you asked it when we say face the music the question is well

5:27

what song are they playing I was intentionally charged as every major

5:33

whistleblower in the last decades has been with the very particular crime this

5:40

is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 and and this is a law that is

5:47

explicitly designed to prohibit a meaningful defense in court this is

5:53

applied or this law is used against people who’s the only thing that they’ve

5:58

done and this is by the government’s own terms the only thing the government accuses people defending themselves

6:04

against this charge I have done is that they have told something to a journalist

6:11

that the government considers classified that is the whole of the crime they

6:17

don’t consider whether it was good or bad they don’t consider whether or not it caused harm simply did you tell

6:22

something classified to a journalist if you did the jury is not allowed to

6:27

consider and in fact they’re explicitly forbidden from considering why you told

6:32

journalists they’re explicitly forbidden from considering did it result in a public benefit right did it further the

6:40

public interest instead they simply say did you tell a journalist let the glass buy so I am NOT if I had stayed in the

6:46

United States and my good friend Daniel Ellsberg by the way that has told me that I was right not to stand and wait

6:54

for an inevitable arrest because the laws and the way they’re enforced today is not the same as the 1970s when he

7:01

came forward with the Pentagon Papers I would not have received a fair trial

7:06

there would not have been much of a trial at all I would only have received a sentencing and the question there is

7:15

what message does that send whether you like me or not I could be the best person in the world

7:20

I could be the worst what message does a conviction where you spend the rest of your life in prison for telling

7:26

journalists things that change the laws of the United States that have resulted

7:32

in the most substantive reform so intelligence authorities since the 1970s

7:37

if the only result of doing that is a

7:43

life sentence in prison the next person who sees something criminal happening in the United States government will be

7:49

discouraged from coming forward and I can’t be a part of that where do your parents come down on what you did in the

7:56

book we learn a lot more than we knew about them they were both we say this in

8:02

quotes deep Staters we learn that they both had varying degrees of security

8:07

clearances in their lives yeah I come

8:13

from a federal family my father worked for the military my mother works for the courts my whole line going back has

8:21

worked in the in the government service so I think this was difficult for them

8:26

and in fact one of the things that I will be eternally grateful for is the

8:31

fact that they still stand by me today and believe that I did the right thing were they present for your wedding

8:38

you’ve gone and gotten married in the years since we’ve last spoken there

8:45

hasn’t been a wedding yet actually we were married but it was just a paperwork

8:52

sighs in a courthouse because Lindsay and I had been living together we had

8:58

been in love with each other we had been in a relationship for more than ten years there will be a wedding someday

9:05

Brian and I hope you’ll be there what do you make of Donald Trump there

9:14

are so many things that are said about the president right now and so much

9:20

thinking and honestly I try not to think about it there’s so much chaos and there

9:25

are so many aggressive and offensive things said I think even his supporters

9:31

would would grant that but I think he’s actually quite simple to understand

9:36

Donald Trump strikes me like nothing so much as a man who has never really known

9:43

a love that he hasn’t had to pay for and so everything that he does is informed

9:48

by a kind of transactional ism I think and what he is actually looking for is simply for people to like him

9:55

unfortunately that produces a lot of negative effects do you believe he is a threat to national security I mean this

10:06

is the question of who defines national security what is national security when

10:12

we used to talk about national security we thought about public safety but now national security really means the

10:19

security of the system itself the institution of government and I think he’s made it his stated goal to change

10:27

the way that system works I think we have seen tremendous harm done to civil

10:32

liberties in the United States increasingly since September 11th and I haven’t seen any reduction in the rate

10:38

of that we have several important jobs vacant in this country including

10:45

director of national security national security advisor is that a threat to our

10:52

security I think it really says something about

11:03

where we are what this point in our history looks like when we find that

11:10

there are not enough people in the country that are willing not to serve in the White House and qualify to serve in

11:16

the White House who all sides of the government feel comfortable working with and who they can back we are in a time

11:23

that is increasingly fractured and I think that’s a product of the fact that look if you look around at the world

11:29

right now when you look at news when you look at news coverage when you look at every controversy that we see something

11:36

has changed and that is that it has become increasingly popular for your

11:42

feelings to matter more than the facts and I think that’s toxic to a democracy

11:47

because if there’s one thing that we have to have to be able to have this discussion to be able to learn to live

11:54

with people that we disagree with we can’t have a conversation about what we

12:00

should do we can’t have a conversation about where we are going if we can’t

12:07

agree on where we are if we can’t agree on what is happening facts have to

12:12

matter more than the feelings you’ve said your greatest fear over what you

12:18

did was that things would not change have things changed would you do it

12:25

again today knowing what you know now this is a significant portion of the the

12:32

final chapter of my book things have changed and I would do it again if I

12:39

changed anything I would hope that I could have come forward sooner it took

12:44

me so long just to understand what was happening and it took so long not to realize that nobody else was

12:51

going to fix this believe me when I say I did not want to light a match and burn

12:59

my life to the ground no one does nobody really wants to be a whistleblower but

13:05

the results of that have been staggering I thought this was

13:10

gonna be two days story I thought everybody was gonna forget about this a week after the journalist ran the first

13:17

stories in 2013 but here we are in 2019 and we’re still talking about it in fact

13:22

data security surveillance the internet manipulation and influence that’s

13:28

provided or produced rather by a corporate or governmental control of this permanent record of all of our

13:37

private lives that’s been created every day by the devices that we have before

13:44

2013 if you said there’s a system that’s watching everything you do the government is collecting records of

13:49

every phone call in the United States even for those people who are not suspected of any crime it was a

13:54

conspiracy yes there were some people who believed it was happening yes there were academics who could say this was

13:59

technically possible yes there were technologists who could went this is something that could be done but what we

14:08

didn’t have it was we the world of 2013

14:14

we suspected some suspected that this was happening the world after 2013

14:20

we know that it’s happening and this is the critical importance of journalism particularly in this moment that we have

14:25

today the distance between speculation and fact is everything in a democracy

14:32

because that’s what what lets us as we did post 2013 change our laws now the

14:38

very first program that was real to newspapers I has since been terminated Barack Obama who criticized me so

14:44

strongly in June of 2013 by January of 2014 was proposing that this program be

14:50

ended eventually it was ended under the USA Freedom Act the NSA argued that mass

14:57

surveillance was legal bulk collection as they they call it they said 15

15:04

different judges authorized this what they didn’t tell us was that those 15

15:09

judges all belonged to the rubber-stamp FISA Court that over 33 years had been

15:15

asked 33 thousand nine hundred times by the government to approve surveillance requests

15:20

only said tow in 33 years 11 times now

15:26

this was a court that was never designed to interpret the Constitution right it was never designed to create novel

15:33

powers for the intelligence community it was just designed to stamp basic routine warrants now we know what has

15:42

changed the very first open court outside of these secret rubber-stamp courts that got this case in front of

15:49

them I was judge Leon in a federal court and then a court of appeals and said

15:55

that the NSA’s mass surveillance activities were violating even the very loose standards of the Patriot Act they

16:01

broke the law he further said these programs are likely unconstitutional and

16:07

this would not have happened if we couldn’t say this is real this is

16:13

actually happening and I just want to make clear that’s not me saying that that’s not speculation that was the

16:20

determination of the Supreme Court just a few months before I came forward in a

16:25

famous case Amnesty versus clapper I I believe it was in February of 2013 or door December of 2012 all the way to the

16:36

Supreme Court these surveillance authorities were being challenged the plaintiff said the government has a mass

16:41

surveillance program it has impacted this human rights organization they have been spied on in secret by the

16:47

government the government said that may be but if it’s happening we will neither

16:53

conform confirm nor deny that it’s happening it is a state secret and

16:59

because you can’t prove it the court should be forbidden from ruling on the

17:05

constitutionality of this program and sadly the Supreme Court of the United States agreed they said this program could be

17:12

unconstitutional but if you cannot prove it exists we cannot evaluate it that’s

17:17

what 2013 changed on the legal side we

17:22

have now had the GDP or we have firt had the first European regulation that are trying to limit the amount of

17:30

data that can be collected secretly and used against populations broadly and we have also seen the basic structure of

17:36

the Internet itself change in response to this understanding that the network

17:42

path that all of our communications cross when you request a website when

17:48

you send a text message when you read an email for so long those communications

17:53

have been electronically naked or unencrypted before 2013 more than half

17:59

the world’s internet communications were unencrypted now far more than half are

18:05

measured by just web traffic from where the world’s leading browsers the Google Chrome browser some figures showed it

18:13

more than 80 percent the entire world has changed in the last few years it

18:20

hasn’t gone far enough the problems still exist and in some ways they’ve gotten worse but we have made progress

18:26

that would not have been possible if we didn’t know what was going on related question what today can the government

18:33

do to your phone and your laptop the phone and laptop of any American what’s

18:41

the extent of the government’s reach if they’re determined to reach into your life we could talk about this question

18:51

for hours Brian but we don’t have time so I’ll try to summarize hacking has

18:58

increasingly become what governments consider a legitimate investigative tool they use the same methods and techniques

19:05

as criminal hackers and what this means is they will try to remotely take over your device once they do this by

19:13

detecting a vulnerability and in the software that your device runs such as Apple’s iOS or Microsoft Windows they

19:21

can craft a special kind of attack code called an exploit they then launch this exploit at the

19:27

vulnerability on your device which allows them to take total control of that device anything you can do on that

19:33

device the attacker in this case the government can do they can read your

19:38

email they can collect every document they can look at your contact book they can turn the location services on they can see

19:45

anything that is on that phone instantly and send it back home to the mothership

19:50

they can do the same with laptops the other prong that we forget so frequently is that in many cases they don’t need to

19:57

hack our devices they can simply ask Google for a copy of our email box

20:03

because Google saves a copy of that everything that you’ve ever typed into that search box Google has a copy of

20:09

every private message that you’ve sent on Facebook every link that you’ve clicked everything that you’ve liked

20:14

they keep a permanent record of and all of these things available not just to

20:20

these companies but to our governments as they are increasingly deputized as sort of miniature arms of government

20:26

what about enabling your microphone camera if you can do it they can do it

20:35

it is trivial to remotely turn on your microphone or to activate your camera so

20:42

long as you have systems-level access if you had hacked someone’s device remotely

20:47

anything they can do you can do they can look up your nose right they can record

20:53

what’s in the room the screen may be off as it’s sitting on your desk but the

20:58

device is talking all of the time the question we have to ask is who is it talking to even if your phone is not act

21:05

right now you look at it it’s just sitting there on the charger it is talking tens or hundreds or thousands of

21:13

times a minute to any number of different companies who have apps installed on your phone it

21:21

looks like it’s off it looks like it’s just sitting there but it is constantly chattering and unfortunately like

21:26

pollution we have not created the tools that are necessary for ordinary people

21:32

to be able to see this activity and it is the invisibility of it that makes it so popular in common and attractive for

21:40

these companies because if you do not realize they’re collecting this data from you this very private and personal

21:46

data there’s no way you’re going to object to it what about its ability to

21:51

track its own and talk to me specifically about the case of Jamal khashoggi so in the case

22:02

of Jamal Khashoggi this is a Washington Post reporter and a primary critic of the Saudi regime he

22:13

was lured into the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul in Turkey and

22:22

while his fiance waited outside for him to get the paperwork he needed in order to marry her he was murdered by the

22:30

Saudi government allegedly on the orders of the Crown Prince now we have to ask

22:39

ourselves how did the Saudi government decide that he was worth killing how did

22:46

they decide when and how they would kill him how did they know this opportunity was going to arise how do they know what

22:52

his plans and intentions were that they needed to stop from their perspective we

22:58

don’t have evidence that his phone personally was hacked unfortunately

23:03

because we do not have his phone but we do have the phones of his friends who

23:10

were living in exile in Canada and we do know thanks to the research of a group called the citizen lab affiliated with a

23:16

university in Canada that their phones were hacked which means their conversations with Jamal khashoggi were

23:23

intercepted and this allowed the Saudi regime to know that he was intending to create an electronic protest movement

23:31

they didn’t need to know from his friend’s phone or even from his phone

23:37

that he was travelling to the consulate because he had to make an appointment but it did tell them his private

23:46

intentions his hopes and dreams for a different government for their country and perhaps although we do not know for

23:53

sure on that basis they decided to murder him once your phone is hacked

24:00

what is in their hands is not simply your device it is your future

24:05

it’s important also to remember how did the government of Saudi Arabia manage to

24:12

hack these people’s phones which are modern phones well they didn’t have this

24:17

capability in their government they didn’t have this level of intelligence capability available to them directly so

24:25

they purchased it from a digital arms broker a company called the NSO Group an

24:31

Israeli company in this company the only thing they do is manufacture digital

24:37

weapons kind of hacking tools they can be used against the critical infrastructure that all of us rely on

24:42

the phones and our pockets they primarily target devices such as the Apple iPhone and they sell this

24:50

capability to break into phones of people around the world for millions and millions of dollars to some of the worst

24:56

governments on earth and the only meaningful oversight that they have unfortunately because the export control

25:03

laws for these kind of digital weapons are extremely weak in Israel is their own internal ethics board this is oh it

25:11

was fine we didn’t break any rules that has to change what about the public attitude

25:17

held by millions of everyday Americans all I’ve got on a computer is pictures

25:26

of my family CCTV cameras that are prevalent in a ton of American cities

25:34

and overseas capitals those cameras are your friend if you’re innocent and have

25:39

nothing to hide well I’d say that’s very

25:45

much what the average Chinese citizen believed or perhaps even still to this

25:50

day believes but we see how these same technologies are being applied to create

25:56

what they call the social credit system if any of these family photos if any of

26:02

your activities online if your purchases if your associations if your friends or in any way different from what the

26:10

government or the powers-that-be of the moment would like them to be you’re no longer able to purchase train tickets

26:16

you’re no longer a to board an airplane you may not be able to get a passport you may not be

26:22

eligible for a job you might not be able to work for the government all of these things are increasingly being created

26:29

and programmed and decided by algorithms and those algorithms are fueled by

26:34

precisely the innocent data that our devices are creating all of the time

26:39

constantly invisibly quietly right now our devices are casting all of these

26:50

records that we do not see being created that in aggregate seemed very innocent

26:58

you were at Starbucks at this time you went to the hospital afterwards you

27:04

spent a long time at the hospital after you left the hospital you made a phone call you made a phone call to your

27:10

mother you talked to her until the middle of the night the hospital was an oncology clinic even if you can’t see

27:18

the content of these communications the activity records what the government calls metadata which they argue they do

27:25

not need a warrant to collect tells the

27:31

whole story and these activity records are being created and shared and

27:36

collected and intercepted constantly by companies and governments and ultimately

27:41

it means as they sell these as they trade these as they make their

27:47

businesses on the backs of these records what they are selling is not information

27:52

what they’re selling is us they’re selling our future they’re selling our

27:57

past they are selling our history our identity and ultimately they are

28:03

stealing our power and making our stories work for them what devices do

28:10

you use in your life now and have you accepted the notion that you are watched

28:18

rather constantly well probably every

28:25

intelligence the world is definitely targeting me in trouble anything they can just as they did with

28:30

Jamal khashoggi in regards to what are my plans and intentions I try not to

28:37

make that easy for them if I get a smart phone and I need to use a phone I

28:42

actually open it up before I use it I perform a kind of surgery on it to physically desolder or sort of melt the

28:52

metal connections that hold the microphone on the phone and I physically take this off I remove the camera for

28:58

the phone and then I close it back up I seal it up and then if I need to make a phone call I will attach an external

29:04

microphone on and this is just so if the phone is sitting there and I’m not

29:09

making a call it cannot hear me now this is extreme most people do not need this

29:15

but for me it’s about being able to trust our technology my phone could

29:22

still be hacked my laptop could still be hacked and just as I told you before the same principles applied to me if it is

29:28

hacked they can do anything to the device that I can do so my trust in technology is limited but just because

29:36

that’s how it is today doesn’t mean that’s how it has to be and a large majority of my work with the freedom of

29:42

the press foundation where I serve as president of the board is dedicated to trying to make technology more secure to

29:49

try to create programs and protocols by which we can make the communications of

29:56

sources and journalists more confidential because if we lose the

30:02

confidentiality between sources and journalists we lose access to those essential facts that let us understand

30:08

what’s happening in the world and unfortunately under this White House just like under the prior White House we

30:14

see the sources of very important stories that have advanced the public interest facing retaliation from a very

30:22

angry government I believe it’s in the first half of the book and I’m paraphrasing you come out and just say

30:29

the computer guy knows everything or at least he should what part computer guy are you were you

30:37

and what part trained spy

30:43

well for the vast majority of my career I was what was called a systems engineer

30:49

or a systems administrator an administrator sort of maintains and expands a system that they have

30:56

inherited and a systems engineer sort of develops new projects new capabilities

31:03

for these systems roles what this means in short was that all of the systems the

31:09

NSA and the CIA that I was put in charge of I had total access to and this is

31:16

just what happens with the systems administrator when you think about a computer system who gives someone else

31:22

access well someone has to be the original authority that has access to everything that was me and so I would

31:30

say the computer guy knows everything that’s not a boast that’s simply the way

31:36

these systems are designed that’s the way they’re structured and this is very

31:41

much a vulnerability because it means that you have to trust this this

31:46

administrator will work to the good of the users but what happens when the

31:53

people using that network the people constructing that network are going against the benefit of the broader

31:59

society and this put me in a very interesting kind of conflicted position I could do what the NSA wanted me to do

32:06

or I could do what the Constitution of the United States the the public of the United States needed me to do which was

32:15

report that my agency had broken the law do you regard yourself as a journalist these days I’m not I’m not I have

32:25

tremendous respect for journalists but I try to keep a distance particularly in this moment where so much of journalism

32:32

is coming under attack because the government has a tremendous incentive to discredit me to make people distrust me

32:39

and so if I hold myself out if I start reporting stories if I start talking to sources if I try to start advancing what

32:49

the public knows on a personal level my reputation could could sort of poison

32:54

instead I keep a distinction what I do is I try to aid the work of journalism but I am NOT myself a journalist your

33:01

book is highly personal tell us about the price your then girlfriend now wife

33:07

paid for your actions and how you feel she was miss portrayed in the eyes of

33:15

the world when we got that first kind of thumbnail sketch of who she was so in

33:23

the wake of the revelations of mass surveillance in 2013 this was suddenly

33:31

the world’s biggest story in every country they were talking about the same thing and unfortunately that meant that

33:37

everyone who was connected to me in some way they were also talking about because they were trying to say who I was where

33:45

I came from and this unfortunately meant that Lindsey my lifelong partner was

33:55

intensely investigated both by the FBI in the United States she didn’t know

34:00

what I was doing I could not tell her what I was doing because if I had they

34:06

would have said she was an accessory to the crime they would have said she was part of a criminal conspiracy so long as

34:12

she didn’t immediately pick up the phone and say help help someone’s talking to a journalist and so this meant that I

34:20

couldn’t tell her she learned about what was going to happen the same way everybody else did about what is

34:26

happening the same way everybody else did she saw me on TV which probably makes me the worst boyfriend in the

34:32

history of the United States but she stuck by me and we are reunited and

34:38

together today and I will never be able to repay her for the faith that she’s

34:44

shown me but the media had a tremendous

34:50

amount of salacious reporting when they realized that she taught toll pole fitness classes which are quite popular

34:58

for him in these days they called her a stripper even though she’s never been one even though she’s a poet even though

35:05

she’s a photographer they sexualized her they focused on her body they focus on her image because

35:10

that’s what got attention she’s a much more complex and deep figure than the media ever gave her credit for she is

35:17

more brave then anyone can possibly understand and she’s more political and

35:25

intelligent than any of these reporters at the time could appreciate her

35:31

politics in fact influenced mine and I’d like to think I learned as much from her

35:37

or perhaps even more than she ever learned from me you paint a portrait of

35:44

what some of us knew and that was that you were a thoroughly American kid in

35:49

your upbringing you wake up every day in Russia you go to sleep every night in

35:56

Russia are you actively seeking to get out are you as has been reported looking

36:04

for asylum elsewhere well this is not an actively

36:10

seeking this is not a new thing and this is important history especially for those people who don’t like me for those

36:17

people who doubt me who have heard terrible things about me it was never my intention to end up in Russia I was

36:24

going to Latin America and my final destination was hopefully going to be Ecuador when the United States

36:29

government heard that I had left Hong Kong where I met the journalists they

36:34

canceled my passport they gave press conferences about it which meant I wasn’t allowed to board my ongoing

36:40

flight which was going to take me that’s a Latin America rather than applying for Russian asylum rather than

36:48

saying I’ll play ball with any Russian intelligence service just please protect me I said no I will not cooperate with

36:55

the Russian government or any government instead what I did as I was trapped for

37:00

40 days in an airport I don’t know a year longest layover is but 40 days was

37:05

was a tough stint I applied for asylum in 27 different countries around the world traditional US allies places like France

37:12

and Germany places like Norway that I felt the US government

37:18

and the American public could be comfortable that was fine for whistleblower being and yet every time

37:24

one of these governments got close to opening their doors the phone would ring and they’re in their Foreign Ministries

37:31

and on the other end of the line would be a very senior American official it was one of two people then Secretary of

37:38

State John Kerry or then Vice President Joe Biden and they would say look we

37:43

don’t care what the law is we don’t care if you can do this or not we understand the protecting whistleblowers and

37:48

granting asylum as a matter of Human Rights and you could do this if you want to but if you protect this man if you

37:56

let this guy out of Russia there will be consequences we’re not gonna say what they’re what they’re gonna be but there

38:04

will be a response I continue to this day to say look if the United States

38:10

government if these countries are willing to open the door that is not a hostile act that is the act of the front

38:17

of a friend if anything if the United States government is so concerned about Russia right shouldn’t they be happy for me to

38:25

leave and yet we see they’re trying so hard to prevent me from leaving I would ask you why is that

38:31

I’m guessing Joe Biden is not your candidate for 2020 actually I don’t take

38:39

a position on the 2020 race look it’s a difficult position being in the

38:47

executive branch it’s a difficult position being in power and you have to make unpopular decisions I would like to

38:55

think having seen now in 2019 that all of the allegations against me did not

39:00

come true national security was not harmed as a result of these disclosures but they did win the Pulitzer Prize for

39:08

public service journalism the laws were changed as a result the courts said

39:14

these programs were unconstitutional we live in a safer and more secure world

39:19

because the Internet is safer and more secure as a result of understanding these common vulnerabilities which not

39:26

just US intelligence agencies we’re exploiting but our adversaries were exploiting one

39:31

close these holes we do not become more vulnerable we become more secure in 2013

39:39

it’s fair to say some of these officials some of these candidates grow well the intelligence services are saying this

39:46

guy’s dangerous they’re saying this is a risk they’re saying this shouldn’t have happened in 2019 we can see that no

39:52

evidence has ever been presented that the public understanding mass

39:58

surveillance is real has caused any kind of harm whatsoever no one has died no

40:04

terrorist attacks have succeeded because we knew about this stuff these programs work regardless of whether or not you

40:11

know about them but we have seen the public benefits substantiated year after

40:18

year after year and so I’d like to think these people would reevaluate their position you know there are government

40:23

officials who would push back very strong on your assertion that national security was not harmed you do you chose

40:30

not to stop with your revelations at what was being done to Americans and you

40:37

got into America and its allies and perceived enemies when we’re looking at

40:48

the reports that were published in 2013 it’s important to understand I never

40:53

published a single story the number of documents that I revealed is zero what I

40:59

did was I collected an archive of material showing criminality or unethical or unconstitutional behavior

41:05

on the part of the United States government I provided this archive to

41:10

journalists who were required as a condition of access to this material not

41:15

to publish any story because it’s interesting they could publish no story simply because it’s newsworthy they were

41:22

only allowed as so far as the agreement went to publish stories that they were willing to stand up and say we’re in the

41:28

public interest to know and this is not some crazy fly-by-night organization these are newspapers like the Washington

41:35

Post like the New York Times like the Guardian and in every case this process

41:42

was followed now as an extraordinary check on top of this in case I went too far in

41:47

case I collected a document that was too hot or I misunderstood things or the

41:52

jernt the journalists misunderstood things the journalists were further required to go to the government in

41:58

advance of publication and they were required to do this at my request and warned the government this is the story

42:06

that we’re gonna run this is what it’s about this is what we’re gonna say so the government could argue against it to

42:12

create an adversarial check on what the journalists and I were trying to do to

42:17

reconstruct the system of checks and balances in the United States that hid itself failed in the government you know

42:25

because that process was followed so scrupulously that’s why I am so confident that no harm happened no harm

42:31

occurred now if there are those in the government that say harm took place if there are those in the government who

42:38

say people have died I ask you this why haven’t they proved it you know better

42:43

than anyone Brian that these government officials are more than happy to pick up a phone and make a leak to the New York

42:50

Times every day of the week I if they had some evidence that somebody

42:55

was hurt if they had evidence that a terrorist attack got through because of this journalism it would be in the front

43:01

page of every newspaper in the world and despite six years of history that’s

43:08

never happened describe your life today what is every day like how are you

43:15

supporting yourself and and as a simple equation if the Russians have reached so

43:21

effectively into our lives and our electoral systems they must be all over

43:26

your life so that was several different

43:32

questions but yeah I’m sure the Russian government is trying to spy on me I’m sure the United States government is

43:37

trying to spy on me everyone’s trying to spy on me the thing is I don’t cooperate with them my allegiance is to my country my

43:45

allegiance is to my Constitution now in my terms of my daily life it’s actually

43:52

pretty ordinary Oh which is to say it’s not so interesting I’ve always been something of an indoor cat

43:57

right among nightclubs and partying my life since I was a child has always been

44:02

mediated by a screen that’s my choice so not much actually changes in my

44:08

day-to-day whether I’m living in New York or Berlin or Moscow in terms of my

44:13

work which a lot of people are curious about this I think is a polite way of people asking do you work for the

44:19

Russian government do you accept money from the Russian government you know are you living in Russian government housing are you in a bunker are there guards and

44:26

of course the answer to all of these is no no I’m not what I do for a living is

44:35

speak professionally and now I’m actually an author I have a speaker’s

44:40

bureau it’s called the American program Bureau and you can call them and you can book a public event I speak at

44:46

universities I speak at corporate events I speak at cybersecurity conferences to talk to people about what is happening

44:53

on the internet what is the future of surveillance and how can we protect ourselves I’m very fortunate to have had

45:00

that opportunity and it’s meant that I’ve had a quite comfortable life and in quite a difficult position the former

45:08

White House aide HR Haldeman left us with an expression for the ages and when

45:14

he said you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube for Americans who feel

45:19

that that this is just a behemoth that they could there’s no way they could

45:27

have any control over it for Americans who long ago decided we’re just going to

45:32

have to live with this surveillance how could it possibly be receded or

45:38

rescinded or stopped we can stop a

45:45

program we can thwart an attack we can

45:51

make a device more secure but as you imply the system is still better the

46:00

institutions and agencies and companies that produced these attacks that are creating new methods of spying every day

46:05

will still be there the fundamental change not just in the United States but around

46:11

the world that has to happen is we have to stop thinking about the limitations

46:16

on how data is used as data protection

46:21

regulations right now when we talk about what Google and Facebook are doing right now when we talk about what the NSA is

46:27

doing right now when we talk about what rival governments are doing what the Russians are doing what the Chinese are

46:33

doing what the North Koreans and the Iranians are doing we’re constantly thinking about all right this data has

46:38

been collected and these companies have it how do we regulate their use

46:45

regulating the use is a mistake we

46:50

should do that but that’s the wrong focus it is the collection of data that

46:56

is a problem when you start trying to regulate use you’re going to the collection has already happened the

47:02

collection was already legal one of the fundamental flaws in u.s. privacy

47:07

legislation is the fact that we are one of the only advanced democracies in the world that does not have any basic

47:14

privacy law whatsoever we have the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which is the reason that I came forward

47:19

but that restricts what the federal government can do that restricts what the state governments can do it doesn’t

47:27

restrict what companies can do and as you know as everybody knows these companies are playing a bigger and

47:33

bigger part in the world today we have to say all of these records that they’re

47:39

creating about all of us all this control that they’re developing from these surveillance programs whether

47:45

they’re saying they’re doing it for targeting advertisements or whether they’re doing it for targeting killings

47:51

these records belong to the people that they are about not to the companies and

47:58

this is a fundamental change that we have never discussed in a meaningful way broadly and publicly but we have to

48:06

because all of these governments have said you know the the mass surveillance

48:11

system why do we have it why is it useful they say because of terrorism they say it’s saving lives they save its

48:18

oppressive anting attacks but no less than Barack Obama and the response to the 2013 revelations

48:25

created two independent Commission’s to investigate exactly the answer to that question were these programs effective

48:32

in stopping terrorist attacks did these revelations cause harm to national security it was called the privacy and

48:38

civil liberties oversight board and the president’s review group on intelligence and communications technologies and

48:44

despite having an enormous budget despite having complete access to classified information despite the fact

48:51

that they interviewed the heads of the FBI the NSA the CIA you know the full alphabet soup they found in the

48:58

government’s own words the kind of mass surveillance that’s represented by this

49:05

bulk collection program where the NSA was secretly collecting the phone records of every American and everybody

49:11

else around the world every day under an authority provided by a secret court order that nobody even knew existed that

49:19

program had never made their own words a concrete difference in a single

49:24

counterterrorism investigation think about that more than 10 years of operation and secret never made a single

49:30

concrete difference these programs mass surveillance is not about public safety

49:36

it is not about terrorism it is about power

49:41

it is about economic espionage it is about diplomatic manipulation and it is

49:46

about social influence it is about understanding the actions of everyone in

49:53

the world as carefully as they can no matter who they are no matter how

49:58

innocent their life final question has to do with the Fourth Amendment we have

50:04

it today because mr. Adams and others wanted to keep the British out of their

50:10

homes and their horse carriages what would mr. Adams and the founders make of

50:17

the reach of the government in your view into our lives given its humble

50:24

beginnings I think if any of the founders of this

50:30

country looked around today they would be shocked by the kind of rhetoric they hear and they would be shocked by the

50:35

kind of activities of government they see if you read the Bill of Rights something that struck me when I was

50:42

writing about it and in this book was that fully half of the first ten

50:50

amendments are explicitly making the work of government harder they’re making

50:55

life for law enforcement officials harder and all of the founding fathers

51:01

thought that was a good idea because they recognized the more efficient a government is the more dangerous it is

51:09

we want a government always that is not too efficient we want a government

51:14

always that is just efficient enough because government holds extraordinary

51:21

power in our lives we want government always to be using their powers in a way

51:26

that is only necessary and proportionate to the threat presented by whoever it is

51:32

that they’re investigating when the government is getting by by the skin of their teeth the people are free right

51:39

the government should be afraid of the people people shouldn’t be afraid of the government one of the ironies about the

51:46

founding fathers for those who are skeptical of me which is fair again I don’t want you to trust me and I want

51:52

you to doubt me I want you to question me but I want you to look at the facts I want you to look beyond how you feel in

51:58

the moment how we all feel in the moment and see what these stories said in 2013

52:04

see that the courts of the United States where I’m being charged as a criminal

52:10

said that the government itself was engaged in criminal activity look at these things and then remember the

52:17

people who founded this country were called traitors the signing the writing

52:26

of the Declaration of Independence was an outrageous act of treason it was

52:32

criminal but it was also right the question whether or not I broke the law

52:38

is less difficult and less interesting than whether you think what I did was right or wrong what

52:45

is legal is not always the same as what is more final prediction then we’ll let you go nightclubbing

52:52

and that is do you predict do you predict you will at some point live out

52:58

your life and die in the United States I

53:04

think I will return when we look at the kind of things that we’re being said

53:09

about me in 2013 the kind of hostility I face the kind of accusations I faced from the most senior officials in

53:15

government and we look at the world today yes there are many still who don’t like me but far far fewer because we

53:23

have seen that all the harms that they alleged over the course of these years never came to pass they were never substantiated because

53:30

they don’t exist but the benefits are becoming more clear with each passing year the question that I think people

53:37

have to answer whether you like me as person or not right whether you agree

53:43

with how I did what I did whether you agree with the work of the journalists who decided what the public should know

53:51

in order to cast their votes today you know the government broke the law today

53:57

you know the United States government had broken that violated the Constitution and the rights of people in this country and around the world would

54:06

you rather not know thank you and Snowden thank you very much good luck

54:12

with the book that’s my pleasure Brian thank you for having me

54:17

hey there I’m Chris Hayes from MSNBC thanks for watching MSNBC on YouTube if you want to keep up to date with the

54:22

videos we’re putting out you can click subscribe just below me or click over on this list to see lots of other great

54:27

videos

oooooo

ooo

Operation DAWN

(https://substack.com/home/post/p-146560924)

Scott Ritter

Jul 12, 2024

The next President of the United States will likely be called upon to decide about engaging in a nuclear conflict. This doesn’t have to be our future.

It’s time to get real, America.

Election Day 2024, November 5, is rapidly approaching, and the reality is that the person who wins will either have an R or a D next to his or her name.

Many Americans support a candidate with an I or a G next to their names.

But these candidates won’t win the White House.

A vote for those candidates is little more than a protest vote.

The time for protest is over.

It is now the time for action.

Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 176 of Ask the Inspector

America is fundamentally divided over who should occupy the White House for the next four years.

If you support the D candidate, you think the R candidate, who previously served as President for four years, was the worst President in American history.

And if you support the R candidate, you think the same about the current D candidate.

The reality is, however, that America survived four years of the R guy.

And so far, we have survived four years of the D guy.

And it is highly likely that we will survive the next four years as well, regardless of who wins.

Unless there is a nuclear war.

Then we all die.

There are many issues confronting America today.

All of them are important.

Most of them divide us.

None are of immediate existential concern.

Nuclear war is an immediate existential threat to our existence.

And yet this issue is not being discussed or debated in the lead-up to the November 5 elections.

As such, no matter who we put in the White House, America will face the real probability of nuclear war during their term in office.

And we all die.

So, the question we all face as Americans is what are we willing to do to prevent this outcome?

What would you do to save Democracy?

What would you do to save America?

What would you do to save the World?

The answer? By making your vote count in November.

Make your vote about the one issue which is literally life and death—preventing a nuclear war by promoting peace.

How?

By pledging your vote to the single issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace.

By avoiding the trap presented by political party or personality.

By declaring that your vote will go to the candidate that best articulates a policy designed to avoid nuclear war and promote peace.

This election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters spread out among several critical battleground states.

If enough Americans commit their vote to the issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace so that they constitute a constituency capable of swinging a state to the candidate that earns their vote by promulgating such a policy, then we have a chance to put someone in the White House who won’t kill us all by getting us involved in a nuclear conflict once he or she is elected.

The 1986 Doomsday Map

In 1986, scientists from the Institute of Medicine published a study exploring the potential impact of a nuclear strike on the continental United States.

The study highlighted the most dangerous zones produced by such a strike on a map, indicating areas where radiation exposure would surpass 3,500 rads. “Within this region… more than three-quarters of the population would die,” the study concluded.

“It is our hope,” the authors of the study declared, “that national decision-makers will develop a better understanding of the ‘collateral’ consequences of hypothetical first strikes and of the enormous destructive capacity of the weapons that would survive. That understanding should make them less likely to seek counterforce capabilities or to fear such attacks from the other side.”

In 1987, the US and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a foundational arms control agreement which eliminated entire categories of nuclear missiles and set the stage for even larger reductions in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the respective sides.

Today the INF treaty is no more. The last strategic arms control treaty is set to expire. There are no new arms control negotiations. Both the US and Russia are building new nuclear weapons as part of an arms race that has the world on the cusp of general nuclear war.

The next President of the United States will more than likely be faced with a decision regarding whether or not to enter into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

So, I ask again:

What would you do to save Democracy?

What would you do to save America?

What would you do to save the World?

What would you do to make your vote count in November?

By supporting Operation DAWN, you will have the opportunity to accomplish all these tasks.

Operation DAWN is a nationwide event designed to garner a million-plus pledges by American voters to make preventing nuclear war and promoting peace the single issue upon which they will cast their vote come December.

Join us in Kingston, New York on September 28, at one of our satellite locations throughout America, or online through one of our affiliated podcasts.

Help save your future.

oooooo

ooo

The Dead Zone, Revisited

(https://scottritter.substack.com/p/the-dead-zone-revisited=

Scott Ritter

Jul 14, 2024

Christopher Walken, as Johnny Smith, draws a bead on Martin Sheen’s Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone

Days before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, President Joe Biden publicly declared that “it’s time to put a bullseye on Trump.” While Biden clearly wasn’t openly calling for the assassination of Trump, words have meaning. And at a time when heated rhetoric can fuel political violence, everyone—including the President and former President—need to weigh their words carefully.

In David Cronenberg’s 1983 film, The Dead Zone (based upon a novel written by Stephen King), Christopher Walken plays a schoolteacher named Johnny Smith who, after nearly dying in an accident, awakens from a coma possessed with psychic powers—an ability to see into the future. This new power turns into a curse after Smith shakes the hand of Greg Stillson, a populist third-party candidate for the US Senate, played by Martin Sheen. Smith has a vision of Stillson becoming president and ordering a nuclear strike against the USSR. Smith confers with his neurologist/therapist, Dr. Sam Weizak (played by Herbert Lom), who is cognizant of Smith’s psychic power. Weizak postulates the question, “What would you do if you could go back in time and kill Adolf Hitler?” before he committed his many atrocities. After pondering this question, Smith decides that the only course of action left to him is to assassinate Stillson before he becomes president.

Scott Ritter will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 177 of Ask the Inspector.

I don’t know what motivated Thomas Matthew Crooks, the 20-year-old Pennsylvania resident whom authorities have named as the person who fired the shots that wounded former President Donald Trump and two bystanders, and killed another innocent bystander, before himself being killed by the Secret Service. There will presumably be a very thorough investigation into this criminal act of political violence.

What I do know is that the rhetoric which had superheated the American political scene in the months, weeks and days leading up to the attempted assassination at a pro-Trump political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, mirrored in tone, content, and purpose the advice Dr. Weizack gave to Johnny Smith about how best to deal with the threat posed by the potential election of Greg Stillson.

The perpetrators of this rhetorical lambasting populate the entire spectrum of societal influence and control, from the President of the United States, Joe Biden, to the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to numerous Senators and Representatives in the US Congress, to various pundits, experts, and analysts who provide commentary on political events for the mainstream media, and to their respective echo chambers and independent content creators on social media.

All are complicit in the attempted assassination, just as Dr. Weizack was complicit in the crime planned by Johnny Smith. The difference between Weizack and these modern conspirators, however, is that one event takes place as part of a fictional narrative, and the other as part of a national reality.

 

A defiant Donald Trump following the failed attempt on his life

President Biden has emerged as the principal voice among the crowd of politicians, pundits, and politicized activists who have been defining former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to American democracy, and America itself.

Just to be clear (because words do matter), an existential threat is a threat to something’s very existence—when the continued being of something is at stake or in danger.

It is, literally, about life and death.

This apocalyptic description has now been attached to any supporter of Donald Trump (reviled by Biden as “MAGA”, the acronym for “Make American Great Again”, the rallying cry of the pro-Trump movement).

Perhaps Biden and his supporters forgot that Trump pulled in some 74 million votes in 2020—about 47% of the participating electorate. There is no more certain way to incite a literal Civil War than to label one half of the country as an existential threat that must be neutralized come hell or high water.

“I believe in free and fair elections and peaceful transfer of power,” Biden proclaimed at an Arizona election event in September 2023. “I believe there’s no place in America—none, none, none—for political violence,” Biden said.

If only he had remained on script.

“There’s something dangerous happening in America now,” Biden at the same event. “There’s an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy: The MAGA movement.”

Biden speaking in Arizona in September 2023

Later, in December 2023, Biden went further. “Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy,” Biden declared. “We cannot let him win.”

Speaking on the occasion of the 80^th anniversary of the Normandy landings, Biden invoked the imagery of war when speaking about defending American democracy. “American democracy asks the hardest things: to believe that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves,” Biden said. “So, democracy begins with each of us.”

As Biden spoke, his campaign released a video which declared, “There is nothing more sacred than our democracy. But Donald Trump’s ready to burn it all down.”

Biden literally invoked the struggle against Hitler as being synonymous with his struggle against Trump and the MAGA Republicans.

A day before the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Biden, speaking in Michigan, announced that the gloves were coming off. “We’re going to say who he is, what he intends to do. Folks, Donald Trump is a convicted criminal.” Biden later declared that “Most importantly, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, Trump is a threat to this nation.”

Donald Trump is no more a threat to the United States than Joe Biden.

Each articulates policies the other finds reprehensible.

But these policies must pass through the gauntlet of constitutional processes before becoming policy.

And, when speaking of the United States, it is these very processes that give us the right to call ourselves a Constitutional Republic.

There is nothing undemocratic about having differences of opinion.

That is what elections are all about.

But there is something inherently unconstitutional in promoting political violence by converting these political differences into articulations of existential gravitas, where literal life and death outcomes hinge on who prevails in an election.

By labeling Donald Trump as a threat to America, Joe Biden was—literally—saying that to preserve America, this threat must be eliminated.

This is not an extreme interpretation of how Biden’s words can be construed by those inclined to believe Donald Trump is a danger to the Republic. The actress Lea DeLaria, who appears in the popular television drama, Orange Is the New Black, recently uploaded a video to her Instagram channel.

“Joe,” DeLaria declared (referring to the current President of the United States), “you’re a reasonable man. You don’t want to do this. But here’s the reality: This is a fucking war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our fucking country. And these assholes are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away. Thank you, [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence ‘Uncle’ Thomas. Joe, you now have the right to take that bitch Trump out. Take him out, Joe. If he was Hitler, and this was 1940, would you take him out? Well, he is Hitler. And this is 1940. Take him the fuck out!”

As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in a landmark 1919 decision regarding the First Amendment of the US Constitution, free speech does not give one the right to shout “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

Nor should it empower anyone, from the President on down to radical personalities such as Lea DeLaria, the right to incite political violence—especially against a former US President who aspires—not without reasonable justification—to be the next President of the United States.

Threatening the president of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. The law prohibits anyone from making “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict great bodily harm upon the president of the United States.” The law also includes presidential candidates, vice presidents, and former presidents. The Secret Service is responsible for investigating suspected violations of this law.

The Secret Service needs to pay Lea DeLaria a visit. So does the FBI. She should be detained, questioned and charged appropriately.

Lea DeLaria (left), Jacquline Marsaw (right)

So, too, should anyone who articulates in favor of political violence against Donald Trump or Joe Biden. This includes US Congressman Bennie Thompson, who has openly called for Donald Trump to be stripped of his Secret Service protection if sentenced to prison, holding that prison authorities would be responsible for the protection of Trump.

Ask Jeffrey Epstein how that worked out.

And, just to prove the point that Bennie Thompson’s intention behind his proposed legislation wasn’t driven by pure legislative motive, enter, stage right, Thompson’s Field Director, Jacqueline Marsaw, who posted on her Facebook page the following comment: “I don’t condone violence but please get you some shooting lessons so you don’t miss next time oops that wasn’t me saying that.”

But it was Jacqueline Marsaw that said it. Her subsequent removal of the post doesn’t erase the deed.

And she should be held accountable.

So, too, should everyone who articulates actual violence as a solution to the issues that divide the nation when it comes to presidential politics.

I don’t take these matters lightly. On March 21, 1981, I was in the Student Union of Franklin and Marshall College checking my mail when the news broke about the attempted assassination of President Reagan. “I hope he dies,” one of my fellow students announced, after watching the shooting on a television located in the common area.

The attempted assassination of President Reagan, March 1981

I immediately put him up against the wall and told him I took violent exception to his support for the attempted assassination of my commander in chief (I was fresh out of the Army at that time).

My antics earned me a trip to the Dean of Student Affairs, who informed me (I was a newly arrived Freshman) that I would probably be expelled from college.

“We don’t tolerate acts of violence among students,” the Dean said.

“But you do tolerate the promotion of the political assassination of the President of the United States,” I retorted. “I’m curious what the Secret Service would think about that.”

The Dean thought on my words, and the incident was resolved by having me apologize to the student in question for roughing him up, and the student apologizing for his “insensitive” comments about President Reagan.

Today I made the decision to suspend the chatroom associated with my Telegram channel. This suspension will last 24 hours.

I made the decision after participants commented in response to a post I made about the attempted assassination.

The post was as follows:

The attempted assassination of former President Trump underscores the extraordinarily precarious situation America finds itself in at this point in time in history.

Political violence is tragically not unknown in America—the assassination and attempted assassination of American Presidents is a sad reality of the American experience.

That an estranged citizen would convert his personal demons into an action designed to end the life of the person he blamed for what haunts him is sadly a byproduct of a society conditioned to accept violence as a means of resolving disputes, regardless of the underlying legality of the action. The Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of its articulation and implementation, is the living manifestation of this reality.

But America has never before experienced a situation where the political environment itself has contributed so heavily to an atmosphere where political violence is openly advocated by a sitting President and his political party.

The depiction of Donald Trump by President Joe Biden as a criminal who represents a direct threat not only to democracy but also the existential survival of the American Republic creates a causal linkage that leads inevitably to the attempted assassination. Biden’s words have been echoed by the Democratic Party and anti-Trump activists on mainstream and social media in such a fashion that it constitutes a veritable green lighting of political violence against the former President.

At a time when the American people and nation are fundamentally divided on political issues for which it seems there is no middle ground, when these divisions are articulated in stark existential terms, and when the Democratic Party is already being accused—with good reason—of politicizing and weaponizing the apparatus of judicial power to prevent Donald Trump from successfully challenging Joe Biden in the upcoming presidential election, the articulation by Biden and his supporters of Trump as a threat to the survival of the Republic that must be stopped at all costs is little more that an open directive for political violence.

America has never been closer to Civil War at any time since 1861. The assassination of the former President on the orders—perceived or otherwise—of a sitting president and the establishment he directs would likely result in the permanent irreconcilable division of the nation along ideological grounds and lead to massive outbreaks of violence and the potential fracturing of the physical unity of the nation.

We live in a very precarious moment. The fever pitch of political rhetoric must be cooled down immediately. If both sides cannot walk back their respective political passions, then what happened in Bulter Pennsylvania yesterday will become the inevitable norm, and violence, not reason, will become the chosen means of ideological differences.

And if that is the direction America is heading, God help us all.

In response to this post, several chat participants posted content which endorsed political violence in American, to include the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater.

And you can’t advocate for the assassination of a candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Not in my chat.

And not in my America.

Postscript (movie spoiler alert):

Johnny Smith doesn’t shoot Gregg Stillson. Stillson’s loathsome character is exposed to the public, which rejects him, ending his political career. Therein lies the lesson: let politicians be themselves. And trust the American people to make the right choice. And if your choice doesn’t win, do better next time. Because in America, if we actively participate in the democratic processes that underpin our Constitutional Republic, there will always be a next time.

oooooo

Scott Ritter@RealScottRitter

ooooo

Jeff Norman@citizenjeff

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1812988777096458301

oooooo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1812823560018173970

oooooo

Scott Ritter@RealScottRitter

oooooo

Scott Ritter@RealScottRitter

oooooo

oooooo