TRUMP - The Investigation of Abuse of Power

"Trump focuses anger at whistleblower as impeachment inquiry deepens" PBS NewsHour 9/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump acted as his own defender in chief on Monday, criticizing a whistleblower complaint, as some of his allies tried to argue that Democrats are rushing an impeachment inquiry.  But not all Republicans are defending the President, including his former Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert.  Lisa Desjardins reports, then joins Yamiche Alcindor and Judy Woodruff for more.

"Pompeo, Democrats clash over whistleblower inquiry and documents" PBS NewsHour 10/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Tuesday pushed back on demands by House Democrats for testimony and documents related to the Ukraine investigation, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley defended the whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump’s actions.  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff for more developments.

"Why Barr asking foreign leaders for help in probe of U.S. agencies raises concerns" PBS NewsHour 10/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  According to The Washington Post, Attorney General William Barr has been personally visiting with foreign leaders to encourage them to help out with an investigation that President Trump hopes will discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.  William Brangham talks with Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post to untangle the many threads of the story.

"Democrats warn White House that time is up to produce documents" PBS NewsHour 10/2/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Top House Democrats sent a warning to the White House on Wednesday: Stonewalling the impeachment inquiry will be treated as grounds for impeachment itself.  Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged for the first time that he was on a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president.  Yamiche Alcindor reports, then joins Lisa Desjardins and Judy Woodruff for more.

"How Republicans see the impeachment inquiry" PBS NewsHour 10/2/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Do Republicans believe President Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s leader warrants an impeachment inquiry?  Judy Woodruff gets two perspectives from former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Chris Buskirk of American Greatness on the potential political ramifications.

"Trump shocks again by encouraging China to investigate the Bidens" PBS NewsHour 10/3/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Donald Trump is facing an impeachment inquiry because he urged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son.  But Thursday, Trump said he would welcome similar involvement from another foreign power: China.  The admission comes as the two countries prepare for trade talks.  Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor and The Washington Post's Michael Kranish.

"Trump is suggesting foreign leaders investigate the Bidens.  Is that illegal?" PBS NewsHour 9/30/2019

COMMENT: I've done a bit of research on impeachment (not only Wikipedia), our Constitution does NOT require that a statuary law be violated to bring charges, it is up to Congress (the House) to define what 'high crimes and misdemeanors' are.

"The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from 'the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'  Such offenses were 'political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.'  According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense.  Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct." - Wikipedia

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What are the legal and national security implications of President Donald Trump’s encouraging foreign powers to investigate a potential political rival?  Judy Woodruff talks to Michael Mukasey, who was attorney general under former President George W. Bush, and Carrie Cordero, a former Justice Department and intelligence official who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

"Why talking to Ukrainian officials disproves the Trump narrative on Biden" PBS NewsHour 10/4/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Ukraine lies at the heart of the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, who has urged the country’s new President to investigate the Biden family.  Special correspondent Simon Ostrovsky, who has reported from the country for years, returns there to speak with officials and activists about what really happened with Joe and Hunter Biden, U.S. aid and Ukraine’s anti-corruption efforts.

PRIVACY - The Face Off

Yah.....lets trust software from a hostile nation that has been hacking and trolling America for years, and still trying to influence our political process.  NO WAY!

"How FaceApp highlights a gap in U.S. privacy protections" PBS NewsHour 7/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The growing popularity of FaceApp, a photo filter app that allows users to transform their features by adding or removing wrinkles, is sounding alarm bells among privacy advocates and lawmakers.  There are questions about how the images of people's faces could be used, especially as the app's company is based in Russia.  Amna Nawaz talks to the Center for Democracy & Technology’s Joseph Jerome.

TRUMP - Embarrassing at G-20, Again

"At the G-20, Trump delivers warning on election meddling with a grin" PBS NewsHour 6/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Japan, President Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin and his staff not to meddle in the 2020 election, but he did so with a grin.  Although G-20 summits have historically been calm conferences, President Trump has made them less predictable.  He will finish his trip to Osaka with a pivotal meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.  Nick Schifrin reports.

CYBER WAR - U.S. v Russia

"Why cyber warfare represents diplomatic territory" PBS NewsHour 6/17/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The New York Times reported over the weekend on U.S. military attempts to infiltrate the Russian power grid.  The effort represents the latest offensive in an increasingly digital conflict with Russia, whose 2016 election interference is well documented.  John Yang talks to R.P. Eddy, a former National Security Council official and founder of an intelligence consulting firm, about this new frontier.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/14/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump and foreign campaign help, Democratic debates" PBS NewsHour 6/14/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including President Trump’s comments about willingness to accept foreign opposition research, the status of election security legislation, candidate lineups for the upcoming Democratic Presidential debates and the politics of Democratic socialism.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Back in the U.S., the stages are set for the first Democratic primary debates, and President Trump weighs in on accepting information from foreign governments about political opponents, which brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So let's start with the story that has pretty much dominated the week, David, and that is President Trump saying in that interview with ABC that if he were offered information from a foreign government about a political opponent, he wouldn't have any trouble taking it, and he — why would he report it to the FBI?  Now, he's walked it back a little.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  But how serious is this?

David Brooks:  Well, it's a great moment in moral philosophy when you're asked if you're going to cheat, and you say, of course, everyone cheats.

(LAUGHTER)

I salute him for not pretending to be better than he really is.  He's pretty candid about it.

But I do think that's a bit of his mind-set, that the rules — everybody breaks the rules.  And maybe he conducted his business life that way, and he certainly wants to do that.  It's just his natural reaction is, of course.  Everybody breaks the rules.

What's disturbing to me is not so much him.  We sort of know him already — is how many Republicans are now walking themselves up to the position, well, we're in a death match, and so we need a leader like that.

And I think, in order to justify their support for President Trump, they have talked themselves — or many people have — into the position that this is a life-or-death struggle, the left is out to destroy us, and so breaking the rules is what you got to do.

And so that, to me, is almost a scarier prospect than the heart and soul of Donald Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  So, some of them, some Republicans have said that he made a mistake.

David Brooks:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  But you're right.

David Brooks:  Mitt Romney and others.

But some of the others, the people who are supporting him, it's the ends justify the means argument.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Yes, I agree with David.

It just — it strikes me that the President remains unchanged in a changing world.  Being President has not changed him in the least.  Even Warren Harding, not a particularly thoughtful or self-reflective man, said, the White House is an alchemist.  It finds what your strengths are, in his case, finds what your weaknesses are.

Donald Trump said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos: I have heard a lot of things in my life.  I have never gone to the FBI.

I mean, he was talking as a New York real estate guy.  He's never made the transition to, I'm thinking, is it good for the United States of America, is it good for the working families, is it good for world peace or whatever, that a President is supposed to think through that prism.

It comes right down to, is it good for me?  And, to David's point, hey, hey, get a little advantage over my opponent, yes, you better believe I will do it.  What am I, a sissy, a snitch that's going to go to the FBI?

And it's a — it really is sort of a sad moral judgment.

The other thing I would just point out is ABC — it was ABC's story.  And ABC today broke the — they revealed the Trump state polls at this point.  And I don't know if you saw that, but he is now trailing Joe Biden by 16 points in Pennsylvania, by 10 points in Wisconsin, by seven points in Florida.

So, I mean, we're looking at the cusp right now, given those kind of numbers, of a campaign that literally would do anything.

Judy Woodruff:  Which the President, when he was asked about those polls the other day, said that that's not correct.

Mark Shields:  That's right.

Judy Woodruff:  That his polls show that he's ahead in every state.

Mark Shields:  And these are his polls that they revealed today.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  But, David, to your point about Republicans being on board, I mean, the fact is, you have mainly Republicans holding up efforts in the Congress right now to tighten election security.

So, this is — this is having some consequences here.

David Brooks:  Yes.  And this is Mitch McConnell.

And, frankly, I don't — the federal government has already authorized $380 million for the states.  One of the bills would give them another billion.  And so I don't really know what — the right spending level for this.

But you would think, given what we have been through and the seriousness of what we have been through, that you would want to err on the side of preventing the corruption of our electoral system, which has happened, which we know is going to happen again, from multiple sources, maybe, the Russians doing something different than they did last time.

And so you think you would — if we're going to spend whatever hundreds and hundreds of billions on defense, on our military defense, a billion on — to defend our electoral system doesn't seem to me an outrageous expense.

And so it seems like something they should be doing.  And you get the impression Mitch McConnell doesn't want to do anything that will annoy Donald Trump.

Mark Shields:  Yes, Mitch McConnell has been constant on this.  He's no Johnny-come-lately.

He was the one voice, you will recall, in the leadership in 2016, when the leadership of the Congress unanimously agreed with the Obama administration to go public on the revelation that Russia was already deeply involved in the systematic undermining of our electoral process, he resisted it, and, as a consequence, stopped it.

He is now stopping the reforms.  I mean, even Roy Blunt, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has been quite candid about this.  I mean, the fact is that, in a secular democracy, the closest thing to a public sacrament is a national election.

And when you're starting to tamper with that and trifle with that — I mean, we went through it in 2016.

Judy Woodruff:  In '16.

Mark Shields:  We saw what happened when there was strife and disunity nurtured on the Democratic side between Sanders and Clinton campaigns by those e-mails.  A party chair was forced out.

And Donald Trump himself 140 times mentioned WikiLeaks approvingly during the campaign.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Mark Shields:  I mean, so, there was a play.  And the Mueller report — committee — investigation confirmed it.

Judy Woodruff:  But, at this point, not — nothing is really moving that would change — that would protect…

Mark Shields:  No, thanks to Mitch.

Judy Woodruff:  … that would protect what we have — gone on.

Mark, you mentioned the polls.  The Democrats, it probably brought a little spring to their step.  But we know these polls are temporary.

Today, David, the Democratic National Committee announced that they have got their first debates coming up next week.  And they're divided into two nights because there are so many candidates.  The Democrats — the party said, OK, the most we're going to allow on the stage on any one night is 10.  So they have got 10 one night and 10 the next.

Today, they drew names.  And we can show you the lineup now.  On the first night, June the 26, there are going to be these 10.  And I'm not going to name every single one of them.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  But I can tell you that this is — Elizabeth Warren is included here, Beto O'Rourke, and then the others, Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar and a number of others.

The second night, you have, frankly, several of the front-runners, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and others.

TRUMP WITHOUT BOUNDARIES - Accepting Foreign Opposition Research

"Why Trump’s view of accepting foreign opposition research is ‘textbook illegal’" PBS NewsHour 6/13/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has caused a new outcry by declaring that he would accept information about a political opponent provided by a foreign government.  The admission comes after Robert Mueller warned of significant Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.  Yamiche Alcindor reports, and Judy Woodruff talks to former federal prosecutor Shan Wu and Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal Center.

VOTE 2020 - Protecting Our Elections

"After Mueller revelations, how to protect election integrity in 2020" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Although the Mueller report concluded Russia intervened in the 2016 election in a “sweeping and systematic fashion," the Trump administration has at times downplayed the interference, as well as 2020 election security.  Judy Woodruff asks former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem, and Thomas Rid author of a forthcoming book on influence campaigns, about what has and hasn't been done.

"Here’s what voters are saying about 2020 election integrity" PBS NewsHour 4/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Mueller report continues to make headlines in Washington, as some Democrats talk impeachment and battle the Trump administration over additional investigations and subpoenas, but how prominent is the subject among voters outside D.C.?  Judy Woodruff talks to Chris Buskirk of American Greatness and Kent State University’s Connie Schultz, about reactions to the report and election security fears.

NATIONAL SECURITY - Targeting U.S. Systems by China & Iran

"Network hacking traced to China and Iran" by Nicole Perlroth (New York Times), San Diego Union-Tribune 2/18/2019

NOTE: This is from the e-newspaper, so no link to article.

Targeting of U.S. systems is more extensive than was previously reported

Businesses and government agencies in the United States have been targeted in aggressive attacks by Iranian and Chinese hackers who security experts believe have been energized by President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal last year and his trade conflicts with China.

Recent Iranian attacks on U.S. banks, businesses and government agencies have been more extensive than previously reported.  Dozens of corporations and multiple U.S. agencies have been hit, according to seven people briefed on the episodes who were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

The attacks, attributed to Iran by analysts at the National Security Agency and the private security firm FireEye, prompted an emergency order by the Department of Homeland Security during the government shutdown last month.

The Iranian attacks coincide with a renewed Chinese offensive geared toward stealing trade and military secrets from U.S. military contractors and technology companies, according to nine intelligence officials, private security researchers and lawyers familiar with the attacks who discussed them on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.

A summary of an intelligence briefing read to The New York Times said that Boeing, General Electric Aviation and T-Mobile were among the recent targets of Chinese industrial-espionage efforts.  The companies declined to discuss the threats, and it is not clear if any of the hacks were successful.

Chinese cyberespionage cooled four years ago after President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping of China reached a landmark deal to stop hacks meant to steal trade secrets.

But the 2015 agreement appears to have been unofficially canceled amid the continuing trade tension between the U.S. and China, the intelligence officials and private security researchers said.  Chinese hacks have returned to earlier levels, although they are now stealthier and more sophisticated.

“Cyber is one of the ways adversaries can attack us and retaliate in effective and nasty ways that are well below the threshold of an armed attack or laws of war,” said Joel Brenner, a former leader of U.S. counterintelligence under the director of national intelligence.

Federal agencies and private companies are back to where they were five years ago; battling increasingly sophisticated, government-affiliated hackers from China and Iran — in addition to fighting constant efforts out of Russia — who hope to steal trade and military secrets and sow mayhem.  And it appears the hackers substantially improved their skills during the lull.

Threats from China and Iran never stopped entirely, but Iranian hackers became much less active after the nuclear deal was signed in 2015.  And for about 18 months, intelligence officials concluded, Beijing backed off its 10-year online effort to steal trade secrets.

But Chinese hackers have resumed carrying out commercially motivated attacks, security researchers and data-protection lawyers said.  A priority for the hackers, researchers said, is supporting Beijing’s five-year economic plan, which is meant to make China a leader in artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies.

“Some of the recent intelligence collection has been for military purposes or preparing for some future cyber conflict, but a lot of the recent theft is driven by the demands of the five-year plan and other technology strategies,” said Adam Segal, director of the cyberspace program at the Council on Foreign Relations.  “They always intended on coming back.”

Officials at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Segal and other Chinese security experts said attacks that once would have been conducted by hackers in China’s People’s Liberation Army are now being run by China’s Ministry of State Security.

These hackers are better at covering their tracks.  Rather than going at targets directly, they have used a side door of sorts by breaking into the networks of the targets’ suppliers.  They have also avoided using malware commonly attributed to China, relying instead on encrypting traffic, erasing server logs and other obfuscation tactics.

“The fingerprint of Chinese operations today is much different,” said Priscilla Moriuchi, who once ran the National Security Agency’s East Asia and Pacific cyber threats division.  Her duties there included determining whether Beijing was abiding by the 2015 agreement’s terms.  “These groups care about attribution.  They don’t want to get caught.”

Federal agencies are also trying to fend off new Iranian espionage campaigns.

After the Trump administration pulled out of the nuclear deal, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen testified before Congress that her agency was “anticipating it’s a possibility” that Iran would resort to hacking attacks.

The Iranian attacks, which hit more than a half-dozen federal agencies last month, still caught the department off guard.  Security researchers said the hacks, which exploited underlying weaknesses in the Internet’s backbone, were continuing and were more damaging and widespread than agency officials had acknowledged.

Iranian hackers began their latest wave of attacks in Persian Gulf states last year.  Since then, they have expanded to 80 targets — including internet service providers, telecommunications companies and government agencies — in 12 European countries and the United States, according to researchers at FireEye, which first reported the attacks last month.

The current hacks are harder to catch than previous Iranian attacks.  Instead of hitting victims directly, FireEye researchers said, Iranian hackers have been going after the Internet’s core routing system, intercepting traffic between so-called domain name registrars.  Once they intercepted their target’s customer web traffic, they used stolen login credentials to gain access to their victims’ emails.  (Domain name registrars hold the keys to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of companies’ websites.)

“They’re taking whole mailboxes of data,” said Benjamin Read, a senior manager of cyberespionage analysis at FireEye.  Read said Iranian hackers had targeted police forces, intelligence agencies and foreign ministries, indicating a state-backed espionage campaign rather than a criminal, profit-seeking motive.

There is a long history of Iranian attacks against the U.S., and episodes from five years back or longer are just now being made public.

Representatives for Iran’s Mission to the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment.

The recent Iranian attacks have unnerved U.S. officials.  But after issuing the emergency order about the ones last month, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency has largely played them down.

An official with the cybersecurity agency said there was a belief that no information had been stolen and that the attacks had not “materially impacted” operations.  But Read of FireEye and others said there had been a noticeable escalation in Iran’s digital espionage.

“If you tell the Iranians you’re going to walk out on the agreement and do everything you can to undermine their government,” said Brenner, the former counterintelligence official, “you can’t be surprised if they attack our government networks.”

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Social Media's Snail-Pace Response

"Sen. Wyden on social media’s ‘excruciatingly slow’ response to Russian interference" PBS NewsHour 12/17/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A Senate Intelligence Committee has released bipartisan reports exposing further efforts by Russia to influence American elections via social media.  Judy Woodruff speaks with committee member Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore) about how sophisticated the Russian efforts are, what social media platforms are doing in response and the responsibility that falls to all Americans to scrutinize information.

"Opinion: If we want to stop Russian interference, start in the classroom" by Mark Weber, PBS NewsHour 10/10/2018

Today, the majority of Americans agree that the Russians attempted to influence the outcome of our 2016 presidential election.  Officials from across the U.S. intelligence community have publicly confirmed that this interference took place.

As a teacher, I’m worried that Russia ever thought it could get away with interfering in the first place.

According to the information that’s been released to the public (so far), foreign powers weren’t able to actually penetrate our voting systems and change votes.  But Russia appears to have believed it could change the outcome of the election by influencing at least some American voters through a campaign of misinformation, propaganda and media influence.

American democracy is predicated on the idea that voters will be able to make sound, rational decisions when they enter the voting booth.  This requires an electorate capable of seeing through sophistry and cheap appeals to fear; in other words, citizens who have been taught to think critically.

I don’t mean to suggest that voters should set aside their own ideologies when casting votes.  Religious, spiritual, political or other beliefs are legitimate bases for making electoral decisions.  But it ought to give all Americans pause that a foreign government thought it could change the outcome of our presidential election through social-media manipulation.  How did we get here?

Are the beliefs and values of Americans so pliable that they can be shifted by some fake news stories on Facebook and rogue Twitter bots?

• Are the beliefs and values of Americans so pliable that they can be shifted by some fake news stories on Facebook and rogue Twitter bots?

As a teacher who has spent a good bit of his time outside of the classroom defending public education, I am the last person to heap all the blame for this on our schools or our educators.  Throughout its history, America has seen fit to hold teachers accountable for a host of problems we never created and couldn’t possibly fix on our own; I don‘t want to add “mass gullibility” to the list.

Still, it’s clear that our adversaries believe many Americans are susceptible to foreign manipulation.  As educators, we should think carefully about whether our schools have played a role in this.

In the past decade, the goal of education has become making students “college and career ready.”  In the interests of bipartisanship, it’s worth noting this goal was widely championed by a Democratic administration, with plenty of Republican support.  College and career readiness is one of the few things policymakers on all parts of the political spectrum have agreed on.

All sorts of policy changes — the Common Core State Standards, expanded testing, school choice, test-based teacher evaluation and so on — can be traced back to the goal of making students “college and career ready.”  For now, I’ll set aside the debate about whether these policies actually work and my qualms about conflating college and career readiness to ask instead:

Should workforce or college preparation be the most important goal of an education system in a representative democracy?  Shouldn’t “citizenship ready” be at least as important?

Some would have us believe that these goals are one and the same.  But I contend being ready for work or higher education is only a part of being ready for citizenship — an important part, certainly, but still only a part.

We Americans contribute more to our society than through our work.  We consume media, we debate, we influence each other and we vote.  And the skills we need to perform these tasks successfully are not necessarily the same ones that we need in the workplace.

Again, I know there are plenty of people who would challenge me on this.  They are the same ones we often hear talking up “soft skills” in the workplace: collaboration, creativity, communication and so on.  They would have us believe that these skills, which workers use to achieve common goals, are the same skills students need to become engaged citizens.

Well, sorry to be contrary, but citizenship often requires us to be contrary.  The American workplace, for better or worse, is mostly hierarchical.  Yes, employees can create and debate inside the parameters given to them.  But most American workers ultimately must submit to an authority: The boss, the customer, or the governing power.  A democracy, however, requires its citizens to challenge authority.  Democratic institutions should be where citizens act, not where they are acted upon.  We, as educators, need to teach our students how to exercise their powers as citizens responsibly, which means teaching them to question those in authority and the arguments made on behalf of that authority.

I’ll admit it’s a paradox.  Inherently, schools are institutions where student power is curtailed.  But, at their best, American schools should be where we train students to ethically push back at the authority we teachers wield.

• We, as educators, need to teach our students how to exercise their powers as citizens responsibly, which means teaching them to question those in authority.

As a music teacher, I deal with issues of student agency on a daily basis.  I always listen to my students when it’s time to program a concert; however, as both the conductor and as the one responsible for turning them into literate artists, I have the final say on repertoire.  But I also have to make sure my students understand that they are entitled to their opinions, and that they have the right to challenge me about what we play — respectfully, of course.  I would hate to think I was teaching generations of students to unquestioningly accept my personal idea of good taste at the expense of developing their own.

Unfortunately, it appears that Russia, and likely many of our other rivals (and allies) in the world, believe that many Americans are incapable of the level of critical thought necessary to question what they are being told by authorities in the media, business or government.  As a matter of national security, we need to assess what we are doing in our schools to promote this type of thinking.

Decades ago, America changed its schooling in response to the Soviet’s launching of Sputnik.  But the latest attack on our elections by the Russians is a much more serious menace than that orbiting ball of metal ever was.

Are we prepared to reassess how we educate our students to meet this new and greater threat?

RUSSIA'S WAR ON AMERICA - Long History of Disinformation

"The long history of Russian disinformation targeting the U.S." PBS NewsHour 11/21/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  From Pizzagate to George Soros conspiracies, “fake news” has become a noxious presence in public discourse, especially since the 2016 presidential election.  A recent New York Times video series explores the long history of Russian disinformation and its origins in what the Soviets dubbed “active measures.”  Nick Schifrin speaks to Adam Ellick, who created the series, for more.

FACEBOOK - Under Fire

"Did Facebook merely ‘deflect’ after realizing Russian disinformation?" PBS NewsHour 11/16/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A New York Times investigative report published this week details how Facebook reacted to the discovery of massive disinformation campaigns run by Russian operatives.  Sheera Frenkel, who helped write the story, joins William Brangham to explain what the social network’s leadership knew before the 2016 presidential election and what, if anything, they did to address the problem.

ELECTION THREATS 2018 - On Guard

"How the government is guarding against 2018 election threats" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Officials in every state will be watching Tuesday's voting process intensely in the face of numerous threats and prior attempts to meddle with American elections.  What threats are they guarding against, and where are the threats coming from?  Nick Schifrin joins William Brangham for a closer look.

ELECTION THREATS - Highly Probable Russian Interference

"Why this author says it’s ‘highly probable’ Russian interference swung the 2016 election" PBS NewsHour 11/1/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Did the involvement of Russian trolls and hackers swing the 2016 presidential election?  Kathleen Hall Jamieson, author of “Cyberwar,” believes it is “highly probable” that they did.  She joins Judy Woodruff to discuss her research on how the Russians found the right messages and delivered them to key audiences using social media--as well as how we can manage foreign election meddling in the future.

ELECTION SECURITY - Ongoing Election Interference

Fake news, Trump's boyfriend says he doesn't interfere.  Yah, right.

"DHS official warns of ongoing election interference from Russia, China" PBS NewsHour 10/11/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As the midterm elections approach, administration officials continue to warn of attempts by foreign entities to influence their outcome.  But they also assert that their preparation could yield ‘the most secure election in the modern era.'  Judy Woodruff speaks with Christopher Krebs, undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security’s National Protection and Programs Directorate, for more.

CYBERSECURITY - Offense & Defense

What do you expect?  The hacking got Trump in the White House and Republicans in the driver seat.  'They' are not really going to stop that.

"Playing offense and defense in the face of cybersecurity threats" PBS NewsHour 8/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In the past 48 hours, findings have been released regarding attempts by hackers to influence the midterm elections.  Now, the Democratic National Committee has reportedly asked the FBI to investigate an attempt to infiltrate its voter database.  Nick Schifrin joins Amna Nawaz to discuss what groups might be responsible for hacking and what preventive measures are being deployed.

TRUMP & THE INVESTIGATIONS - The Nunes Tapes

"Secret recording highlights Nunes’ concern with protecting Trump in Russia probe" PBS NewsHour 8/9/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A secret recording acquired by MSNBC captures House Intelligence chairman Republican Rep. Devin Nunes at a fundraiser discussing the Russia probe -- specifically how Republicans should protect President Trump from the special counsel investigation into Russian election interference.  Lisa Desjardins joins William Brangham to break it down.

CYBERWARS - Can America Fend Off Cyber Attacks

"How prepared is the U.S. to fend off cyber warfare?  Better at offense than defense, author says" PBS NewsHour 8/6/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  “We spent years worrying about the giant cyber-Pearl Harbor,” says David Sanger, author of “The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage and Fear in the Cyber Age.”  But, he argues, that has blinded us to more subtle uses, in which we are all collateral damage.  Sanger joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the threats and realities, how the U.S. wages cyber warfare, and how prepared the U.S. is to stop attacks.

OPINION - Brooks and Klein 8/3/2018

"Brooks and Klein on 2018 election security threats, Koch-Trump brawl" PBS NewsHour 8/3/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein of Vox join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the contrast between President Trump’s lambasting of the Russia investigation and his administration’s heightened warnings about election threats, plus a fringe internet conspiracy theory surfaces at a Trump rally and the rift between Trump and the influential Koch network.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Now back to Presidential politics and the rally President Trump attended last night in Northeastern Pennsylvania to boost Republican Congressman Lou Barletta’s run for the U.S. Senate.

The President’s freewheeling remarks included his characterization about his summit last month with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

President Donald Trump:  I had a great meeting with Putin.  We discussed everything.  I had a great meeting.

Now, we’re being hindered by the Russian hoax.  It’s a hoax, OK?  I will tell you what.  Russia’s very unhappy that Trump won.  That, I can tell you.

Judy Woodruff:  Of course, Putin said in Helsinki last month that he favored Mr. Trump’s election.  And U.S. intelligence officials have said repeatedly that Russia’s efforts in 2016 were intended to help Mr. Trump and hurt the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

The President’s remarks last night also stood in contrast to this warning from his own director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, yesterday in the White House Briefing Room.

Dan Coats:  In regards to Russian involvement in the midterm elections, we continue to see a pervasive messaging — messaging campaign by Russia to try to weaken and divide the United States.

These efforts are not exclusive to this election or future elections, but certainly cover issues relevant to the election.

Judy Woodruff:  And that brings us to the analysis of Brooks and Klein.  That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Ezra Klein, editor-at-large for the news site Vox.com.  And Mark Shields is away this week.

Hello to both of you.

David, to you first.

So, on the same day that his leading national security and intelligence officials are saying, we must take this Russia threat seriously, the President is out a few hours later saying, it’s all a hoax.

Do we take this government effort seriously or not?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, the head of the opposition now uses the White House Briefing Room to oppose the administration policy.  I have never seen anything like it.

I have never seen an administration where a President says one thing or emphasizes one thing, and his entire staff basically emphasizes the complete opposite.

And so what’s the effect?  I think the deep state is still doing its work to try to head off Russian interference.  The Trump apparatus understands there is that interference, and they can do some prophylactic measures to try to head it off, which is what they seem to be doing.

But unless you have the President involved, it’s going to be microactivity, not macroactivity.  And so it’s hard to imagine the Russians, let alone Putin, being at all intimidated by U.S. policy.

And so it’s reasonable to expect that interference will continue, as it seems to be continuing to this day.

Judy Woodruff:  Ezra, do we take seriously that the Trump administration is working diligently to fend off any Russian interference this year?

Ezra Klein, Vox:  No, of course not.

I’m fascinated by the kind of lying Donald Trump did in that clip.  It’s one thing to say, hey, I had a great meeting with Vladimir Putin and the problem is, the opposition, they don’t want us to talk, right?

It’s one thing to shave the truth, or it’s another thing to try to say, hey, look, people are just impeding me, and they’re wrong about it.

But to then go and say, I will tell you what, Russia never wanted Donald Trump to win, Russia hates the idea that Donald Trump won, there’s something about his belief that reality can be that completely manipulated that I find different.  It’s different than the way politicians normally lie.

It’s a different level of confidence in one’s ability to shape reality.  But then, on the other side, to your point, of course Vladimir Putin doesn’t think this would be a problem to do again, because it’s clear Donald Trump on some level welcomed it.

Putin helped him when he needed help.  He’s tried ever since have a great relationship with Vladimir Putin.  And it’s just not credible to say that, if more Russian efforts are uncovered in the future in American politics, that, as long as Donald Trump is in office, that will redound to Putin’s disadvantage.

David Brooks:  There’s one issue of how Republican Party foreign policy has changed.

And so Donald Trump said, I had a great meeting with Vladimir Putin, one of the most anti-democratic, anti-American dictators in the world today, and a Republican rally cheers.  And that’s just a weird, jarring moment.

But then, in Congress, within the Trump administration themselves, and among even John Bolton, the foreign policy apparatus of the Republican Party is still pretty much where it was.

And so which is the future of the party?  Is it a party that looks a lot more like Donald Trump in the foreign policy realm?  Or is it one that looks like the rest of his administration?  I don’t know.  But I suspect it’s a little more like Trump.

Ezra Klein:  There’s another thing on that side I think is interesting, and it’s a flip of what you just said.

The Democratic Party is so angry at Russia that the stakes for Putin in the election get that much higher.  If Trump wins in 2020, he retains an ally.  If he loses, then he’s got a Democratic Party that has spent four years blaming him personally for everything that they believe has gone wrong in the country.

And so when you’re thinking about Russian engagement in the 2012 election, I feel like that’s a dimension of this too, that the parties have polarized on how they treat Russia in a way that has made the incentives for Russia to try to keep their ally in and their enemies out all the higher.

David Brooks:  Rabid anti-communist Democrats now.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  Well, before we get to 2020, Ezra, you were just talking about manipulating reality.

David, you mentioned the deep state.

At the Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania rally last night, and then at a rally earlier in the week in Tampa, Florida, there were in the crowd fans cheering wildly the President, people wearing T-shirts QAnon or holding up the letter Q.

And we have looked into this.  We interviewed our reporter P.J. Tobia this week, who explains it’s this conspiracy theory.  It’s grown.  It’s been out there for months.  But it’s now at the point where it’s come out into the open.  Essentially, what they believe is, there’s a group of people supported by the Clintons, by President Obama, even by President George W. Bush, who are trying to overthrow this President, and they’re going to stop that from happening.

How did we get to this place?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Well, I used to say, we tried to bring democracy to the Middle East, and we ended up Middle Easternizing our democracy, because we now have become a realm of suspicion and conspiracy theories.

Remember the alleged child pornography ring that was happening in a pizzeria on Connecticut Avenue here in D.C.?  These things come and go.  The John Birch Society back in the ’50s, they were filled with conspiracy theories.  These things come and go.

The question is, is there a William F. Buckley, is there a Ronald Reagan, is there a Democratic establishment that can quash them?  And now it’s quite the opposite.

And so what’s happened is, the mainstream — a lot of us mainstream journalists have become delegitimized in the eyes of a lot of Trump supporters, sometimes for our own fault.  We — if — it turns out if you don’t hire from large segments of American society, you becomes attached from them, and they write you off.  And a lot of that’s happened.

But then the fans have been — the fires have been fan by Trump himself.  And, basically, what seems to be happening is a complete inversion of where information comes from.  And the those of us in the mainstream media who used to provide information are now discounted in large sections.

And this new thing has arisen.

Judy Woodruff:  How worried should we be about all that, Ezra?

Ezra Klein:  About the…

Judy Woodruff:  Do we take it — do we take it seriously?  I mean, I’m asking the same question, in a way.

Ezra Klein:  The QAnon conspiracy itself, which is — which is a fascinating conspiracy, right — the argument of the QAnon conspiracy is it Donald Trump, on some level, has this all in hand, that we’re seeing a lot of chaos, but the chaos is all carefully orchestrated, and that, at some point, there’s going to be this big reveal, and Donald Trump and the people he’s working with are going to come out and basically root out all the corruption that has been endemic in Washington for so long.

There’s comfort in believing something like this.

It is hard for me to tell if QAnon is a more profound or wide-reaching conspiracy theory than the ones we have had in the past.  I mean, I think back, even in the Clinton years, to the widespread belief that the Clintons killed Vince Foster, that they were running cocaine out of Arkansas.

I mean, this kind of thing in American politics is not new.  It does have a lot of salience in social media.  It’s a kind of thing that we cover more aggressively nowadays than we used to.

The thing that I do find strange about it is, I tend to associate this kind of conspiracy theorizing with the folks who are out of power.  That’s when you tend to see this stuff take hold.

But Donald Trump and a lot of his supporters act like an out-of-power group, despite being in power.  There’s this talk of the deep state.  There’s as an alienation from a government that they actually have to some degree authority over.  And that’s a weird piece of it that could lead it to go in unusual directions.

Judy Woodruff:  But it’s thriving under a President who’s in office, David.

David Brooks:  Yes, the underlying feature is social distrust, tremendous distrust of institution, dismissal of any institution; so an assumption that every institution, whether it’s a hospital, a newspaper, they’re all corrupt, they’re all in it for themselves.  It’s all a con on the American people.

And once you embrace that as your fundamental truth, this is sort of what happens.

MIDTERM ELECTIONS - States Securing the Vote

"What do states need to secure upcoming elections?" PBS NewsHour 8/2/2018

It will be hard as long as Russia's puppet is in the White House.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The country’s top intelligence and national security officials gave stark warnings Thursday on Russia's ongoing efforts to meddle in November’s elections.  Agency heads acknowledged the threat, while touting the Trump administration’s stepped-up election security initiatives.  California Secretary of State Alex Padilla tells Judy Woodruff that states need more resources to stay ahead of the threat.

FACEBOOK - Countdown to Midterms

And while our democratic process burns, Trump rants and raves about a 'witch hunt.'

"Facebook grapples with evolving threat in the countdown to midterm elections" PBS NewsHour 7/31/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Facebook said on Tuesday that it has removed 32 fake, coordinated accounts, that appeared to be designed to try and influence voters with misinformation and divisive messages on cultural issues -- and they could be connected to Russia.  John Yang learns more from Yamiche Alcindor.

"Facebook finds ‘sophisticated’ efforts to disrupt U.S. elections" by Barbara Ortutay, Associated Press PBS NewsHour 7/31/2018

Facebook said it has uncovered “sophisticated” efforts, possibly linked to Russia, to influence U.S. politics on its platforms.

The company said it removed 32 accounts from Facebook and Instagram because they were involved in “coordinated” political behavior and appeared to be fake.

Facebook stopped short of saying the effort was aimed at influencing the U.S. midterm elections in November, although the timing of the suspicious activity would be consistent with such an attempt.

According to a Facebook official, the company held briefings in the House and Senate this week.  The official declined to be named because the briefings were private.  Facebook disclosed its findings after The New York Times reported on them earlier Tuesday.

The company said it doesn’t know who is behind the efforts, but said there may be connections to Russia.  Facebook said it has found some connections between the accounts it removed and the accounts connected to Russia’s Internet Research Agency that it removed before and after the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.

The earliest page was created in March 2017.  Facebook says more than 290,000 accounts followed at least one of the fake pages.  The most followed Facebook Pages had names such as “Aztlan Warriors,” ”Black Elevation,” ”Mindful Being,” and “Resisters.”

Facebook says the pages ran about 150 ads for $11,000 on Facebook and Instagram, paid for in U.S. and Canadian dollars.  The first ad was created in April 2017; the last was created in June 2018.

The company added that the perpetrators have been “more careful to cover their tracks” than in 2016, in part because of steps Facebook has taken to prevent abuse over the past year.  For example, they used virtual private networks and internet phone services, and paid third parties to run ads on their behalf.