DOCSLIB.ORG

Download the Transcript Here

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download the Transcript Here WTH is going on with Trump's cyberattack on President Episode #63 | July 16, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Ellen Nakashima Marc Thiessen: Hi, I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: And I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: n? So, Dany, what the hell is going on? Danielle Pletka: Well, people may notice that there's a little bit of a role reversal here today, because I'm usually the one asking you what the hell is going on. Danielle Pletka: Anyway, and you actually have something exciting going on, which is that last week you went in and interviewed Donald J. Trump, the President of the United States, just you and he, sitting in the Oval Office. And you broke some pretty exciting news that we've heard about but that the President, for the first time, confirmed. Tell us. Marc Thiessen: So, I asked the President about news reports that he had carried out, in 2018, a cyberattack on Russia to defend the 2018 presidential election. And he confirmed it, on the record. Said he did it, said he was proud of it, and said it was part of a broader strategy of being tough with Russia, which we'll get into in a minute. But this is a big, big news item that I think is the biggest, under-reported story of the Trump presidency. Because, we spent two years of the Mueller investigation, right, investigating the conspiracy theory that Donald Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. And it turned out that wasn't true. And then, going on in 2018, and the Russians tried to start their interference again and do the same things they had done in 2016 Barack Obama knew it was happening when he was in office, but he didn't use America's cyber capabilities to shut down the Internet Research Agency. Donald Trump did. Marc Thiessen: He launched a cyberattack that shut down the Internet Research Agency, took them offline, and kept them offline during the course of the 2018 vote a vote, by the way, which put Democrats in charge of the House. So he was defending an election in which his party lost control of one of the chambers of Congress. And Ellen Nakashima, my colleague at the Post, reported this in 2019 and it got a yawn, broadly, from Washington D.C., because, well, it didn't really fit the narrative. We don't want to give Donald Trump credit for doing something that Barack Obama didn't do, especially when our whole narrative is that Trump is a toady of Vladimir Putin. And so I confirmed it with the President, and he said it, in fact, happened. So I 2 think is huge news that the mainstream media wants to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative about Donald Trump. Danielle Pletka: Sorry. I mean, look. I think that a lot of us have come to understand that the whole narrative about Russia trying to control American politics and putting their puppet, Donald Trump, in office is ridiculous. That doesn't take away from Donald Trump's defects. The problem here, I think, is that this was the sole focus of the first two years of his presidency by the Democrats. And they've kind of let it go by the wayside. Now it is that he's the bad coronavirus president, or he's the... What else has he done that's bad? I don't know. I can't even keep track... Marc Thiessen: Danielle Pletka: Everything, yeah. So I think that's the challenge. But what's interesting to me is that he went after the Russians. Did it stop the Russians, though? It slowed them down for a day or two, but they're back interfering in elections, from the United States, to Europe, to Asia, to wherever they can. Aren't they? Marc Thiessen: Well, he did protect the 2018 vote. I mean, he did stop them from interfering, and it was part of a broader strategy that the administration had. It involved a presidential national security directive that gave our cyber warriors new authorities to combat this. It was legislation that was passed by Congress that gave new authorities for Marc Thiessen: It was a part of a broader strategy that was done largely in the covert space. And they didn't take a lot of credit for it. But the Intelligence Committee sure knew that it was happening, and they continued to attack Donald Trump in 2018. And by the way, this was all happening during the Mueller probe and they weren't taking credit for it publicly, even though Robert Mueller was in the process of pursuing the conspiracy theory about Trump/Russia collusion. This was a great talking point for the administration to push back on that and they didn't because they took the threat seriously when it happened on their watch. Danielle Pletka: Okay. Wait. Wait. Oh, one second. So, I want to talk to you about 2020 and about the conspiracy theories as well. But that seems weird to me. I also want to point out that you brought this up with the President. He didn't bring it up with you. You asked him. Marc Thiessen: But he did it. That's the point, is that making my point, which is they actually took this threat seriously and did something. And even when it was in their political interests to talk about it, they really didn't do it. Danielle Pletka: Do you think they didn't talk about it because they were being reticent and because they felt like it was not appropriate? Or do you feel like they didn't talk about it because Donald Trump doesn't like talking about what a bad guy Vladimir Putin is? Marc Thiessen: Number one, they didn't talk about it because it was a covert operation, which they wanted to preserve deniability of. And there's a value to that. Danielle Pletka: So wait, wait. So he told you about it in the Oval Office, because that's a secure space? AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 3 Marc Thiessen: I'm the first journalist who actually asked him about it. How many press opportunities have they had since 2018 and 2019 when Ellen Nakashima reported this, and it was in the public domain? He's had probably 1,500 press conferences since then or opportunities to talk about it and no one ever asked him. I was the first one to ask, for not reporting this. Shame on the media for not asking him about it. But again, it's because it doesn't fit the narrative, because this is a good news story for the Trump administration. This is Donald Trump, Commander in Chief, who we just had a whole John Bolton book explaining why he's incompetent and incapable of exercising the powers of Commander in Chief. Marc Thiessen: Well, this is a story where the President of the United States led the intelligence community to come up with a strategy to protect the elections. And then when the Russians were repeating their behavior of 2016, he pulled the trigger and launched a cyberattack on them that shut them down. No one wants to report that, because that ols, they came up with a strategy, they came up with red lines, Russia crossed them, he executed. Why would we want to report that, and let the American people know that Donald Trump is actually doing a at least in this area doing a pretty good job as Commander in Chief? Danielle Pletka: Now, I will say that, obviously, this had been out there. As you rightly say, there was a sort of dereliction of duty on the part of certain journalists, who didn't use the opportunity to ask about it. But, the journalists who covered this from the sort of technological side, were pretty nasty about how lame an attack this was, and how it didn't amount to a hill of beans, if I can coin a phrase. And there was a piece that said S Hackers Strike on Russian Trolls Sends a Message. But Marc Thiessen: Yeah. Well, it wasn't lame. And anybody who follows national security and understands it, and we can talk to our guest about that in a moment, it was pretty serious. And what it was was a demonstration effect. They said they sent a message to Russia that if you do this, we have the capability to shut down your internet access and to take you offline. And if you mess with us, we can do it again. So, it was a shot across the bow. But again, Barack Obama didn't do this. I mean, he was briefed on the Russian election interference and he took no action whatsoever. And as the President said in my interview with him, that's because he thought Hillary was going to win and he didn't want to mess things up. And it turned out she didn't win. But he took no action. Marc Thiessen: electoral interfe it when it was happening in 2016. But when Donald Trump was president, he did it. It's an act of war to launch a cyberattack on a foreign country. And he did it. So, I think the President deserves credit when he does the right thing. My view of the Trump presidency is that I give him credit when he does the right thing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'I-Bates (18577-18976)'
    CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, D.C. 2D31IMl999 ACTION MEMO Clt-1232-03 30 September 2003 FOR: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE .L DepSec Action --~ FROM: General Richard 8. Myers, CJCs~C/(f'( SUBJECT: Service Deployment Force Ratios 1 In response to your inquiry . the following information is provided. 1 As you know. Services' Force Rotation Goals were discussed at length during ELABORATE CROSSBOW m, culminating in a brief to you on 15 September. As a result, a common method of force deployment ratio measurement has been agreed upon: number of months deployed versus number of months non­ deployed. • As \Ve have discussed, force ratios will continue to differ by Services for a variety of reasons, and each Service builds its force deployment ratio goals based on the competing demands of long-standing global contingency commitments, sustaining readiness and managing force tempo. , Current Service Ratio -Goals (by Service) are: • Navy I :3: 6 months deployed for every 18 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is each fleet unit. • Marines I :3: 6 months deployed for every l 8 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is a battalion. • Anny I :4: 6 months deployed for every 24 months nonwdeployed. Unit of measure is a brigade. • Air Force 1:4: 3 months deployed for every 12 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is the Air Expeditionary Force. • Recommend an upcoming session be set aside to meet with Service Chiefs to further explore underlying force rotation goal rationales. RECOMMENDATION: OSD and CJCS staffs coordinate meeting with Service Chiefs regarding force rotation goal rationales.
    [Show full text]
  • My Debate with Marc Thiessen
    David FraktProfessor Barry Law School Reserve JAG Officer and Former Guantanamo defense counsel Posted: September 18, 2010 01:40 PM My Debate with Marc Thiessen Earlier this week, I debated General Michael Hayden (USAF, retired), former director of both the CIA and NSA, and Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter and current columnist for the Washington Post, as part of the "Intelligence Squared" Debate series from New York. I was joined by Stephen Jones, an accomplished attorney best known for defending Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber. The specific proposition debated was whether terrorists (or more accurately suspected terrorists) should be treated as enemy combatants, as opposed to handling within the traditional criminal justice system, but the debate covered a wide range of issues in the conduct of the war on terrorism. According to the audience, Stephen and I won the debate handily. For those interested in seeing or hearing the debate, it will be televised on the Bloomberg News Channel starting Monday, and it will also be available soon as a podcast from NPR, or you can watch the unedited version of the debate here. For the most part, Thiessen and Hayden voiced the usual Bush Administration talking points. Thiessen is the author of the bestselling book "Courting Disaster: How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" which Jane Mayer of the New Yorker described as the "unofficial Bible of torture apologists." Thiessen's basic argument was that the detention and interrogation practices of the prior administration were effective, as proven by the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks domestically since 9/11.
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Are Deaths of Despair? Nobel Prize Winner Sir Angus Deaton on the Other Epidemic
    WTH are deaths of despair? Nobel Prize winner Sir Angus Deaton on the other epidemic Episode #52 | May 21, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Sir Angus Deaton Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on now? Marc Thiessen: We're talking about deaths of despair. Danielle Pletka: Oh, that's cheerful. Marc Thiessen: Well, you're right, it's not cheerful, Dany. I mean, look, we are now experiencing the worst economic devastation since the Great Depression. We have more than 33 damage is not being borne by the elites, who work in the information economy and who can telework and do everything by Zoom. It's being borne by those at the middle and the bottom of the economic ladder. For what Trump called the forgotten Americans. People, who were finally doing better under him for a while, and now, all of a sudden, that progress has been wiped out. Danielle Pletka: The phrase, deaths of despair, that we're using, comes from this new book out by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, two economists from Princeton University. It was actually Dr. Case who coined this term, deaths of despair, in talking about people who've really lost all hope. I think that our image of the Depression is one where we see people walking across the dust bowl with all their family belongings on the back of a cart and their ragged children, the iconic photos of this.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes
    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 a Message from the Founders
    LEADERSHIP | PUBLIC SERVICE | FELLOWSHIPS | SELF-SUFFICIENCY | FREE SYSTEMS | DIGNITY | LIBERTY ANNUAL REPORT 2015 A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS “WE ARE PLEASED TO REFLECT ON A YEAR OF CONTINUED GROWTH AND ADVANCES THROUGH OUR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY IMPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND CAUSES. WE REMAIN DEDICATED TO OUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE YEARS TO COME. OUR THANKS TO PARTNERS, SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE FOUNDATION FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT, INTEREST AND SUPPORT.” -DON AND JOYCE RUMSFELD RUMSFELD FOUNDATION IN REVIEW 81 GRADUATE FELLOWS $3.9 MILLION + IN 135 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS MILITARY GRANTS FELLOWS 3 GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP $3.7 MILLION + IN 4 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS CONFERENCES MICROFINANCE GRANTS CONFERENCES Established in 2007, the Rumsfeld Foundation rewards leadership and public service at Mission home and supports the growth of free political and free economic systems abroad. REWARDING LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT HOME Effective leadership and dedicated public servants are essential for our country’s success. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS TROOPS Encouraging gifted scholars to Few have committed more in our serve the nation by pursuing a nation’s service than those who career in public service and have served and sacrificed in policy-relevant fields defense of our country ENCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF FREER SYSTEMS IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA We believe free systems, economic and political, provide the most opportunities for their people. CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Is Going on with the Retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker On
    WTH is going on with the retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker on withdrawal, and the consequences for US national security Episode #115 | September 1, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ryan Crocker Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: I've never been more disgusted in my life with what's happening with what America is doing than I am right now watching the last planes leaving Kabul, leaving behind American citizens, thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to help us, the blood of 13 dead Americans and hundreds of Afghan civilians. It is the most shameful thing I have witnessed in my entire career in Washington. I'm shifting between absolute abject pain and rage as I watch this happen. Dany, what are your thoughts? Danielle Pletka: It is the worst thing in the world that a country like ours, we've suffered defeats, we've made mistakes, we've done terrible things. Never, I hope willfully, but by mistake, we've done terrible things. And we have betrayed allies before. We've not done enough for people who need us. We've let down the Kurds in Iraq, we've let down the Syrian people, but we have never actually gone in and rescued a group of people who in turn sacrificed all for us and for our security as Afghans did, because make no mistake, we were not in Afghanistan for the Afghan people.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Olin Foundation in 1953, Olin Embarked on a Radical New Course
    THE CHRONICLE REVIEW How Right­Wing Billionaires Infiltrated Higher Education By Jane Mayer FEBRUARY 12, 2016 ​ If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to try to wrest control of higher ​ education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents’ weekend at the Ithaca, N.Y., campus, some 80 black students marched in formation out of the student union, which they had seized, with their clenched fists held high in black­power salutes. To the shock of the genteel Ivy League community, several were brandishing guns. At the head of the formation was a student who called himself the "Minister of Defense" for Cornell’s Afro­American Society. Strapped across his chest, Pancho Villa­style, was a sash­like bandolier studded with bullet cartridges. Gripped nonchalantly in his right hand, with its butt resting on his hip, was a glistening rifle. Chin held high and sporting an Afro, goatee, and eyeglasses reminiscent of Malcolm X, he was the face of a drama so infamous it was regarded for years by conservatives such as David Horowitz as "the most disgraceful occurrence in the history of American higher education." John M. Olin, a multimillionaire industrialist, wasn’t there at Cornell, which was his alma mater, that weekend. He was traveling abroad. But as a former Cornell trustee, he could not have gone long without seeing the iconic photograph of the armed protesters. What came to be ​ ​ known as "the Picture" quickly ricocheted around the world, eventually going on to win that year’s Pulitzer Prize.
    [Show full text]
  • Marc Thiessen: Why Trump Impeachment Dreams Are Just a Liberal Fantasy
    Marc Thiessen: Why Trump impeachment dreams are just a liberal fantasy WASHINGTON — Michael Cohen’s decision to plead guilty for making hush- money payments on Donald Trump’s behalf has raised the prospect that if Democrats take control of Congress, they might try to impeach the president over a matter completely unrelated to a perceived criminal conspiracy with Russia. Good luck with that: Even if Democrats win back both the House and Senate, there is zero chance a two-thirds majority of senators will convict President Trump for paying off an adult-film star. It would be the height of hypocrisy if Democrats tried to remove the president over allegations of illegality relating to extramarital affairs. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, congressional Democrats told us the private sexual conduct of a president does not matter, and that lying under oath to cover up a “consensual relationship” is not an impeachable offense. Then-Rep. Charles E. Schumer, D- N.Y., said President Bill Clinton’s lies under oath about his sexual relationship with a White House intern might have been illegal, but declared the scandal “a tawdry but not impeachable affair” — right before heading off to a fundraiser with Clinton. At the time, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared that the Starr investigation “vindicates President Clinton in the conduct of his public life because we’re only left with this personal stuff” and that Founding Fathers “would say it was not for the investigation of a president’s personal life that we risked our life, our liberty, and our sacred honor.” But now that a Republican president is accused of covering up an affair, suddenly Democrats are channeling their inner Kenneth W.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 a Message from the Founders
    LEADERSHIP | PUBLIC SERVICE | FELLOWSHIPS | SELF-SUFFICIENCY | FREE SYSTEMS | DIGNITY | LIBERTY ANNUAL REPORT 2015 A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS “WE ARE PLEASED TO REFLECT ON A YEAR OF CONTINUED GROWTH AND ADVANCES THROUGH OUR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY IMPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND CAUSES. WE REMAIN DEDICATED TO OUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE YEARS TO COME. OUR THANKS TO PARTNERS, SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE FOUNDATION FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT, INTEREST AND SUPPORT.” -DON AND JOYCE RUMSFELD RUMSFELD FOUNDATION IN REVIEW 81 GRADUATE FELLOWS $3.9 MILLION + IN 135 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS MILITARY GRANTS FELLOWS 3 GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP $3.7 MILLION + IN 4 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS CONFERENCES MICROFINANCE GRANTS CONFERENCES Established in 2007, the Rumsfeld Foundation rewards leadership and public service at Mission home and supports the growth of free political and free economic systems abroad. REWARDING LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT HOME Effective leadership and dedicated public servants are essential for our country’s success. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS TROOPS Encouraging gifted scholars to Few have committed more in our serve the nation by pursuing a nation’s service than those who career in public service and have served and sacrificed in policy-relevant fields defense of our country ENCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF FREER SYSTEMS IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA We believe free systems, economic and political, provide the most opportunities for their people. CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS
    [Show full text]
  • How Jeb Bush's Allies Tried — and Failed — to Stop Marco Rubio
    News Buzz Life Quizzes Videos More Get Our App! Clay Rodery for BuzzFeed News Whisper Campaigns and “Zipper Problems”: How Jeb Bush’s Allies Tried — and Failed — to Stop Marco Rubio An adaption from the forthcoming book, The Wilderness: Deep Inside the Republican Party’s Combative, Contentious, Chaotic Quest to Take Back the White House. McKay Coppins BuzzFeed News Reporter posted on Nov. 29, 2015, at 8:47 p.m. On the night of the 2010 midterm elections, a portly, silver­haired Jeb Bush stood on a stage in the courtyard of Miami’s luxe Biltmore Hotel, appearing to choke back tears. The beloved former governor of Florida was there to introduce the young conservative insurgent who had just pulled off a remarkable underdog victory in the U.S. Senate race. “Bushes get emotional, so I’m gonna try my hardest,” Jeb told the ecstatic crowd of Republicans. “My wife told me, ‘Don’t cry, don’t cry.’ But Marco Rubio makes me cry for joy!” At the time, it looked like the culmination of a sturdy alliance and deep friendship — the proud mentor presenting his protege. Five years later, however, the two men are locked in a fight for the Republican presidential nomination, and recent headlines suggest the relationship has soured. According to the New York Times, Bush’s super PAC has threatened to spend $20 million in a blitz of negative ads intended “to damage … Rubio’s reputation and halt his sudden ascent in the polls.” And last month, an internal document leaked detailing the Bush campaign’s efforts to cast Rubio as “a risky bet” for donors.
    [Show full text]
  • “THE REPORT” Viewer Information and Discussion Guide
    “THE REPORT” Viewer Information and Discussion Guide PAGE 1 ​ TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 2 ​ ​ CHARACTER DETAILS Daniel J. Jones --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 3 Dianne Feinstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ page 4 Denis McDonough ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 5 John Owen Brennan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 6 James Elmer Mitchell ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 7 Martin Heinrich --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 7 George Tenet ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 8 Sheldon Whitehouse ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- page 9 John A. Rizzo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]