Kremlin-watcher: How Putin Played the Far Left
With all the coverage of the Russian hacking scandal, you might think Vladimir Putin is trying to advance conservative Republicans. But Casey Michel at The Daily Beast notes that “the past 18 months have seen a noted spike in information warfare” from Moscow “aimed at gulling the Bernie Bros and Occupy-besotted alternative-media set.” Green Party candidate Jill Stein, for example, was “feted” by the Kremlin at a December 2015 gala, where she unveiled a “pro-Putin stance.” Even today, “it remains unclear who paid for Stein’s trip to Moscow and her accommodations there.” Meanwhile, “The Nation’s [pro-Putin] coverage of Russian affairs is a national embarrassment.” Indeed, “Putin has cultivated dupes, fellow travelers and purblind fools among plenty of American progressives.”
Mideast expert: The Man Kerry Left Behind
John Kerry’s legacy as secretary of state “leans heavily towards failure,” asserts Michael Rubin at Commentary, with “hundreds of thousands dead and millions displaced in Syria.” But the man “who should haunt the dreams of Kerry and his team” is former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who remains imprisoned and unheard from in Iran. During negotiations over the nuclear deal, when Kerry’s “leverage was greatest, he did not hold firm to demand Levinson’s return — or information about his ultimate fate.” Nor was his family even notified that when the US paid $1 billion to free five American prisoners. Kerry “made a conscious decision to leave a man behind. That decision represents the worst of the State Department.”
Ex-CIA lawyer: Trump’s Right To Want Intel Changes
Steven Cash, a former CIA lawyer, says President-elect Trump is right to aim to “dramatically downsize” the office of Director of National Intelligence. Writing in The Washington Post, he says even before 9/11, “there was concern that the structure of the US intelligence community was fundamentally flawed.” Since then, the DNI establishment [has] continued to grow” and a series of directors has “struggled mightily” against this bureaucracy. What we need, Cash says, is what was originally envisioned but went nowhere in Congress: “A slim, trim DNI” with “an admiral to lead a fleet” instead of “a new, ponderous ship and another captain . . . with a fancier uniform.”
From the right: What Comey Probe Won’t Focus On
The Justice Department inspector general will review FBI Director James Comey’s statements during the campaign regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. While that’s “undoubtedly appropriate,” Andrew McCarthy at National Review says, it’s “worth noting what the IG will not be reviewing: the Justice Department’s conduct.” By which he means DOJ’s decision “not to open a grand-jury investigation, despite significant concrete evidence of criminal wrongdoing,” as well as “the multiple irregular immunity agreements . . . in a case in which no criminal charges were filed.” Nor will the IG look into why DOJ “allowed subjects of the investigation (who had been granted immunity from prosecution) to appear as lawyers for the main subject of the investigation — despite ethical and statutory prohibitions on such conduct.” In other words, “the decisions that actually tanked the Clinton investigation will not be scrutinized.”
Political reporter: What Now for Post-Obama Dems?
In his farewell, President Obama “made a passionate case” for his policies and civic vision. But Ronald Brownstein at The Atlantic says “his words won’t settle the Democrats’ difficult debate about his political legacy.” Yes, Obama “deepened the Democrats’ connection with a constellation of growing groups” and “a heavily urbanized new coalition.” But he “also narrowed the Democrats’ appeal, both demographically and geographically.” And “as Obama himself has recognized, Democrats cannot cede all that terrain and thrive.” The “one clear message of the Obama years is that Democrats cannot consistently control Congress or most state governments unless they compete better among white voters.”
— Compiled by Eric Fettmann