Saturday, July 21, 2018

Review: 'The President Is Missing' By James Patterson And Bill Clinton

You may have seen James Patterson and Bill Clinton making the rounds on the talk show circuit to promote their book, “The President Is Missing.” The news centering around the interviews has mainly involved the former president having to defend his sexual misbehavior in the #MeToo era. The message of the book has largely escaped media notice on both the right and the left.

I didn’t intend to read the book. Normally anything that involves the Clintons pegs low on my interest meter and despite being a lifelong bookworm I had never read anything by James Patterson. I picked up the book out of curiosity when my son pointed it out at our local library. After perusing it for a few minutes, it piqued my interest enough to check it out.

To those who would argue that my conservative credentials are suspect because I read a book coauthored by Bill Clinton, I say that it isn’t healthy to wall yourself off from all opposing viewpoints. The insular echo chambers of social media in which we hear only a distorted view of the other side’s beliefs are a major problem of modern American life. Besides, I checked the book out from a library so no Clintons were enriched by my reading of the novel.

To my surprise, “The President Is Missing” is a very good book. It is a fast-paced and very believable thriller that is difficult to put down. Despite fears to the contrary, the book does not preach about the liberal point of view any more than average Hollywood movie and probably less so. There are references to traditional Democratic talking points, but that is to be expected from a book that centers around a president who assumed to be a Democrat.

The central character of the book is the president, who tells the story from his point of view. Although a Democrat, the president seems to be a moderate and the character is likable. Like a few modern Democrats from the real world, he is a veteran of Desert Storm. Unlike many from both sides of the aisle, the fictional president puts partisanship aside to act in the best interests of the country at great personal risk to himself.

The plot involves the reliance of modern America on electricity and the internet, a threat that I have been concerned about for years. For a long time, I was concerned that a rogue state such as North Korea or Iran could launch an electromagnetic pulse attack. In such a scenario, a nuclear weapon would be detonated high over the central US and the resulting EMP would fry the electrical grids and devices for most of the country. Such an attack could lead to mass starvation and the collapse of the economy.

More recently, I’ve realized that it would be much easier for cyber attackers to simply switch off the electrical grids and lock out the “white hat” hackers defending them. Given the ubiquitous nature of the internet in modern life, malware and viruses could infest everything from household appliances to defense computers and cause havoc.

If you think it can’t happen, it already has… at least on a smaller scale. Russia has launched cyber-attacks on Ukrainian power plants that caused extensive blackouts as far back as 2015. In 2014, a botnet hijacked 100,000 internet-connected devices including a smart refrigerator and used it send 750,000 spam emails. In October 2016, a massive distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack crashed the sites of such internet giants as Twitter, CNN and Netflix. At about the same time, Russian hackers were attacking numerous state and local election administration sites.

The possibilities for nefarious internet schemes with catastrophic outcomes are limited only by the imaginations of cyber terrorists, but there are many defensive strategies as well. One of the most obvious is limiting exposure. Just because something can be connected to the internet doesn’t mean it should be. Is it really in our best interests to have our refrigerators and toasters online? When it comes to voting, paper ballots, even with all their problems, seem immeasurably more secure than a computer-based voting system.

“The President Is Missing” was a quick and enjoyable read. If you like political thrillers and want to escape the crazy news of the day to a world where problems can be wrapped up in 500 pages, don’t be put off by the former president’s name on the cover. Check it out at your local library and you won’t even have to feel guilty.

Originally published on The Resurgent







FBI Releases Carter Page FISA Warrant

On Saturday, the FBI released a heavily redacted version of the FISA warrant application for Donald Trump's former campaign advisor, Carter Page. President Trump and other Republicans had charged the FBI with illicit spying on members of the Trump campaign.
The document (available here), which is 412 pages, is heavily censored with entire pages blacked out. The application was from October 2016, but even the exact date was redacted.
”The FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian Government, ” the application says and then continues after a redaction, “[to] undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in violation of criminal law.”
“Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” the application states, but the evidence supporting these claims is censored.
”Source # 1” appears to be Christopher Steele, the author of the controversial Steele dossier. Republicans had alleged that the FBI did not disclose that the dossier was commissioned by Democrats as opposition research into Donald Trump.
In contrast to these claims, the application states, ”The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person [who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate # 1’s [Trump's] campaign.”
”Notwithstanding Source # 1’s reason for conducting research into Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia,” the application says, based on Source # 1’s previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source # 1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source # 1’s reporting herein to be credible.”
The uncensored parts of the application detail the allegations from Steele that Page had been told by the Russian government there was ”kompromat” on Candidate # 2, Hillary Clinton. The application says that the kompromat could possibly be released to the Trump campaign.
The application also contains background material on Page’s prior connections to Russia and cites several media reports that detailed alleged meetings between Page and representatives of Vladimir Putin's government. There is a reference to a letter written by Page to then-FBI Director James Comey. In the letter, Page, who was fired from the Trump campaign in September 2016, denied wrongdoing and called the allegations against him ”completely false media reports.”
Nevertheless, the FBI said that there was ”probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities)” for a foreign power.
The redacted application strikes a blow at Republican claims that the FBI did not disclose the political nature of the information from Christopher Steele to the FISA court judge who issued the warrant. Less clear is how much evidence the FBI already had against Page before the warrant was issued. The Steele dossier and news reports were previously known, but a large part of the application is still classified.
Carter Page has not yet been indicted by the Mueller investigation even though he was questioned extensively in June 2017. This raises the possibility that either the surveillance did not uncover any criminal acts by Page or that he has been cooperating with investigators.
Originally published on The Resurgent

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Food Stamp Use Remains High Long After The Recession

The economy is growing and unemployment is decreasing, but one thing hasn’t changed since the Obama era and that is historically high levels of food stamp use. While enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is down from its 2013 peak, participation in the program is near levels that were last seen just after the end of the Great Recession.

Government figures show that SNAP enrollment fell to 39.6 million in April, which is near 2010 levels. USDA tables show that the enrollment in the program reached its height in 2013 at 47.6 million. Prior to 2008, SNAP enrollment was below 27 million.

SNAP is available to families below 130 percent of the poverty level. For a family of four, that works out to $2,665 per month or $31,980 annually.

In the aftermath of the recession, the Obama Administration increased welfare state programs dramatically. In 2012, CNN admitted that “spending on income-based programs, such as food stamps, has increased by one-third to $900 billion under Obama” after Newt Gingrich called Obama the “food stamp president.” Part of the post-recession growth was due to states expanding eligibility for SNAP, which led to more enrollees and increased costs. In 2016, the New York Times reported that states were returning to pre-recession eligibility requirements.

Another reason that SNAP enrollment is still higher than pre-recession levels is that many workers who left the work force never returned. Despite recent drops in the unemployment rate, the labor force participation rate is still far below 2008 levels. The rate has not yet changed from the Obama era levels despite the growing economy.

House Republicans have proposed stricter work requirements to further trim food stamp rolls. The SNAP provisions in the 2018 farm bill have led to a significant dispute between the House and Senate. The two chambers have not yet agreed on a final version of the bill.

Food stamp usage is declining, but it may be years before it returns to pre-recession levels, assuming it ever does. The Trump Administration’s trade war could very well lead the economy into a new recession that increases SNAP enrollment once again.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Democrats Have A YUGE Fundraising Advantage Over House Republicans

One of the big questions of 2018 is whether the Democrats hoped-for “Blue Wave” will materialize this November. President Donald Trump’s unpopularity has not necessarily translated into a boost for the Democrats, however. Generic party preference polls have been up and down with Republicans even leading at times. New Federal Election Commission data shows that donors are already voting with their wallets and it paints a bleak picture for the GOP.

Politico analyzed FEC filings for the second quarter and found that Democrats in 56 House districts outraised their Republican opponents. In 16 cases, House Republicans finished the quarter with less cash on hand than their Democrat challenger while there were no cases in which House Democrats had less money than their Republican challenger.

In battleground districts, many contested due to retiring Republicans, more than two dozen Democrats led the Republican in fundraising. In 19 of these tossup districts, the Democrat had more cash on hand than the Republican.

In all, 22 Democrats running in Republican districts raised more than $1 million over the past three months, a difficult accomplishment for challengers, many of whom are relatively unknown. These Democrats received large one-time contributions from liberal organizations such as Daily Kos and Swing Left in addition to donations from online sources, Democrats around the country and donors within their districts. Only three Democrats earned more than $1 million purely from their own donors.

While several sitting Republicans raised more than $1 million, other GOP incumbents are lagging. Among the vulnerable incumbents are Dana Rohrabacher in California and Dave Brat of Virginia.

The Democrat fundraising advantage is partly offset by large donations to the Republican super PAC that is backing House candidates. The Congressional Leadership Fund received a record $51 million in the second quarter to add to the more than $70 million already in the bank, but many analysts argue that the lack of giving to specific Republican candidates points to a problem at the district level.

The Republican fundraising picture is looking worse than the Democrats in 2010 prior to the Tea Party wave. In the second quarter of 2010, 44 incumbent Democrats trailed Republicans in fundraising and eight Republicans had more cash on hand than their incumbent opponent. In that election, Republicans gained 60 House seats.

Campaign money does not necessarily translate into votes. In past races, Democratic fundraising has not always helped their candidates win the seat. For example, in 2017 Democrat Jon Ossoff set fundraising records for a special election in Georgia, but ultimately lost the election.

Nevertheless, campaigns flush with cash have an easier time getting out their message and motivating voters. In local races, name recognition can count for a lot and campaigns with money can blanket the airwaves and street corners with the candidate’s name and picture. Campaign contributions are also a measure of the level of support for a candidate.

“From a money standpoint, it’s scary. From a turnout perspective and what all this money means for intensity [in November], that’s even scarier,” said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster who focuses on House races.

“This is shaping up to be the Democratic equivalent of the 2010 Republican year, and a lot of these members have never seen this or run in a cycle like it before,” Bolger added. “But the list of outraised candidates is getting longer, not shorter.”

The Congressional Leadership Fund’s executive director, Corry Bliss, said that the PAC money will blunt the Democratic advantage, but seemed to acknowledge that some Republican seats will be lost.

“Those who are not willing to help themselves should not complain when outside support does not come their way,” Bliss said.

Chris LaCivita, a Republican consultant agreed that the fundraising problems spell trouble for Republican incumbents despite the Republican advantage in PAC money.

“If you allow yourself to be outraised, then you are inviting trouble,” LaCivita said. “In a midterm election with your party in power, trouble generally equates to defeat.”


“These guys need to wake up and take a look in the mirror and decide — do they want to be reelected?” he added.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Why Trump’s Russia Retraction Falls Flat

Scarcely more than 24 hours after his triumphant press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Trump walked back some of his criticism of American intelligence agencies. Trump’s comments had been rebuked by many Republicans and been ridiculed around the world.
During their joint press conference, President Trump answered a question about Russian hacking during the 2016 election, saying, “I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the [hacked DNC] server. But I have — I have confidence in both parties.”
By Tuesday afternoon, President Trump was backtracking, saying that he “realized there is some need for clarification.”
"In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't,' " the President said, explaining that he had reviewed a transcript and video of his remarks.
"The sentence should have been: 'I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia,' " he said. "Sort of a double negative."
There are several problems with this explanation. First, the furor should have been immediately apparent to the presidential staff. It should not have taken 24 hours to make such a simple correction.
Just a few hours before the retraction, Trump tweeted that the meeting with Putin was “even better” than his “great meeting“ with NATO. Only the “Fake News” saw it differently, Trump said. If the problem was a simple misstatement, a quick tweet could have resolved the issue much earlier.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1019225830298456066?s=21
Second, the retraction fails to address the other equivocations from President Trump. In the same answer, Trump began by falsely claiming that the FBI had not examined the hacked servers from the DNC then compared Putin’s denial with the claims of US intelligence.
“With that being said, all I can do is ask the question, Trump said. “My people came to me — [Director of National Intelligence] Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.”
Trump then riffed on Hillary’s missing emails, saying again that Russia could probably find them before returning to the theme that Putin’s denial was as convincing as what he heard from US Intelligence.
“So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today,” Trump continued. “And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer.”
Trump claims that he misspoke on one phrase, but what he said was consistent, not only with the rest of the press conference, but also his message of the past few years. Trump has expressed admiration for Putin for years and has denied that he believes Russia was involved in hacking the election since 2016.
Finally, there was another tell that indicated Trump’s lack of sincerity. In another passage of his retraction, Trump added an unscripted remark that indicated what he really thought.
”I have a full faith and support for America's great intelligence agencies," Trump said. "I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place — could be other people also."
“Could be other people also."
With those weasel words at the end of the sentence, the president negated almost everything that had come before. The evidence points toward Russia. Either the president believes the evidence or he believes Vladmir Putin. Who he actually believes is obvious.
President Trump does not back down often. The only other instances that come easily to mind are his abortive flip-flop on gun control and a series of flips on immigration, most recently backing down on family separations. These instances show that the president has the political instinct to retreat from unpopular positions, especially when his base begins to crack. His Russian retraction seems to be another political retreat rather than any real reversal of opinion.
Originally published on The Resurgent

Monday, July 16, 2018

What The Mueller Indictment Really Says

By now most Americans have heard about last week’s indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. While some details of the indictment have been reported in the media, the entire 29-page document is available online and contains surprising details about Russia’s clandestine operation to subvert American elections.

The first count of the indictment is conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. The indictment describes how multiple units of the GRU, Russian military intelligence, conducted large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election.” Two units, 26165 and 74455, are specifically mentioned.

The indictment describes how the GRU, beginning in March 2016, hacked volunteers and employees of the Hillary Clinton campaign. By April, the attacks had extended to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. The attacks included the theft of emails and documents, covert monitoring and implanting malware.

By June, the GRU officers had begun to publicly release the stolen documents online using false personas. Among the accounts used by the Russians were “Guccifer 2.0” and “DC Leaks” and the website of “Organization 1,” publicly identified as Wikileaks.

The indictment goes on to say that the defendants, who are listed by name, used spearphishing techniques to penetrate the internet security of the Clinton campaign. Using emails that spoofed Google notifications and emails that appeared to come from other campaign staffers, the Russians stole internet credentials and emails from “numerous individuals associated with the Clinton campaign.” The spearphishing attacks continued throughout the summer and targeted both Democrat operatives and a third-party contractor.

The indictment references “Victims 1 and 2.” One of the victims has been previously publicly identified as John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign. Podesta became a spearphishing victim in March 2016 after he clicked on a fake email that spoofed a communication from Google.

In addition to the phishing attacks, the Russians also hacked the DCCC and DNC computers beginning in March 2016. The GRU then planted malware called “X-Agent” on the Democrat computers that allowed them to monitor computer activity and steal information. The hackers could even take screenshots of the computer activity of DNC employees. The stolen information was then transferred to servers in Arizona and Illinois that were leased by the GRU.

Once they had access to the Democrat computers, the Russians stole files related to opposition research and strategy for the 2016 election. The indictment notes that on April 15, 2016 the hackers searched Democrat computers for the words “Hillary,” “Cruz” and “Trump.” They also copied a folder titled “Benghazi investigations.” At that point, the Republican primary was a three-way race between Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

In May 2016, the Russians hacked a Microsoft Exchange server used by the DNC. The hack resulted in the theft of thousands of additional emails.

After the thefts, the Russians attempted to cover their tracks by deleting event logs and computer files on the compromised computers in May 2016. Despite these efforts, the DNC became aware of the hacks about the same time.

When the DNC became aware that their networks were compromised, they hired a third-party cybersecurity firm to identify the intruders and mitigate the damage. The indictment refers to this company as “Company 1,” but the firm was previously identified in the press as Crowdstrike.

As Crowdstrike cleaned the computers, the Russian hackers fought back and tried to maintain access. At one point, the hackers mimicked DCCC fundraising page and used stolen credentials to redirect donors to their own site.

Crowdstrike was able to remove X-Agent from the DNC computers, but the Russians successfully attacked again in September 2016. This time the hackers gained access to DNC networks through a cloud computing service. The hackers used this breach to steal analytical data from the DNC.

Preparations to release the stolen information began in April 2016. The dcleaks.com URL was registered through an anonymous service on April 19 using the same email address that had sent the spearphishing email to Podesta. The stolen documents were posted on the DC Leaks site operated from June 2016 through March 2017. The site received more than one million page views.

In addition to the stolen Democratic emails, the DC Leaks site also posted stolen Republican documents. The Republican hack occurred in 2015 and predated the 2016 Republican primary. There is no indication that the Russians targeted the GOP during the 2016 campaign season.

DC Leaks was promoted on a Facebook page run by fictitious accounts. There was also a DC Leaks twitter account. The DC Leaks twitter account was run from the same computer as another Twitter account that promoted the #BlacksAgainstHillary hashtag.

On June 14, 2016, the DNC announced that it had been hacked by the Russian government. The indictment says that the hackers created Guccifer 2.0 in response. Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker, but was linked to the Russians via internet searches for terms that appeared in Guccifer’s posts before they were published. The indictment also notes that the stolen information and financing records between the Russian hackers and Guccifer overlapped.

The indictment also says that Guccifer sent stolen documents to other individuals. In August 2016, Guccifer received a request for stolen documents from “a candidate for the US Congress” and sent back stolen documents related to the candidate’s opponent. The candidate has been identified as Brian Mast, a first-time candidate in Florida who is now a congressman. The Wall Street Journal reported in May 2017 that Aaron Nevins, a Republican consultant who worked for Mast, had received stolen data from Guccifer. Rep. Mast denies knowledge of wrongdoing.

On August 22, 2016, Guccifer also sent stolen DNC documents about Black Lives Matter. The reporter is not identified, but the content of the leak was discussed on Snopes.com at the time.

Guccifer also had contact with a “person who was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump.” This “US person” is Roger Stone, a Trump campaign advisor who left the campaign in August 2015. Stone admitted in August 2016 to being in contact with Guccifer and Wikileaks’ Julian Assange. In a tweet on August 21, Stone said, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel.” More than a month later, on October 7, Wikileaks released the first stolen emails from John Podesta.

Counts two through nine are for aggravated identity theft from eight unidentified victims. The sources of the theft were personal email passwords in four cases and DCCC network passwords in the other four.

Count 10 is money laundering. This deals with transactions in numerous currencies including US dollars and bitcoin that were used by the hackers to finance the operation.

The eleventh count is conspiracy to hack into protected computers that dealt with the administration of US elections in order to steal voter data and other information. The indictment states that the hackers stole personal information about 500,000 voters in July 2016 from a state that public sources identify as Illinois.

The Russians also hacked an election software company identified as “vendor 1” in the indictment. This company is apparently VR Systems of Florida. The Intercept reported last year that the GRU had breached security at VR Systems based on an NSA report leaked by Reality Winner.

The attacks didn’t stop there. Numerous state and country election entities were attacked in the final days of the campaign. The indictment specifically mentions several counties in Georgia, Iowa and Florida.

While the indictment falls short of offering evidence of illegal collusion, it is interesting to note that the indictment mentions “failed attempts to transfer the stolen documents starting in late June 2016.” This seems very close to the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016. This meeting and any follow-ups are likely to be investigated by the special counsel team.

It is also obvious from the indictment that Russian efforts in the 2016 were a one-sided affair. There was no known hack of the Republican Party after Donald Trump ascended to frontrunner status. Every leak that the Russians posted was calculated to hurt the Clinton campaign.

Roger Stone would also seem to be a likely focal point for the Mueller team. At this point, it isn’t clear whether Stone broke the law or passed any information from Guccifer to Trump campaign officials, but it seems likely that Mueller would want to ask Stone and his associates those questions.

The bottom line is that while President Trump and Rudy Giuliani talk about “witch hunts,” Robert Mueller and his team are quietly digging. Despite claims that the Mueller probe is dragging out too long, Mueller seems to be making rapid progress. The indictments of the 12 GRU officers, which seem purposefully timed to throw a cloud over the Trump’s meeting with Putin, are likely just the tip of the special counsel’s case. It makes one wonder what else Robert Mueller knows, but has yet to tell.


Originally published on The Resurgent

Ben Sasse Tweets About Putin

The big item on the agenda for today is the face-to-face meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The meeting in Helsinki, Finland comes three days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers in connection with cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee and the US election infrastructure in 2016.

In advance of the meeting, polling shows that Russia and Putin have become more popular in the US. Since the 2016, despite revelations about Russian cyberattacks, there has been a “reset” of opinions about the country, primarily among Republicans. Gallup recently found that the share of Republicans who view Moscow as an ally has doubled since Donald Trump took office. Perhaps that is why Nebraska Republican Ben Sasse felt compelled to take to Twitter to educate the public about Mr. Putin.

Sasse has recently reappeared on Twitter after a self-imposed hiatus that has lasted most of this year. The Trump-sized tweetstorm on the senator’s popular Twitter account began with the questions, “Exactly who is Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader our president is about to meet with in Helsinki? And what does he want?”

“It’s a complicated question. But here’s what we do know,” Sasse continued.

“Putin is a murderer. He has ordered the assassinations of political adversaries and used outlawed chemical weapons to do it.  He oversees Russian military units that shot down Malaysian flight 17 and murdered almost 300 civilians.

“Putin is a crook and a liar.  He has broken almost every agreement he has signed with the United States, including on Syria and Ukraine. He has become one of the world's richest men through embezzlement and stealing from his own people.

“Putin is an enemy of America. He sees us as his main enemy and is engaged in ongoing attacks on our nation through information warfare and hacking our infrastructure.  It’s not just that he messed with our election in 2016; he attacks us regularly, and will again in 2018.

“Remember, Putin ordered the influence operations that have been exposed in the most recent indictments, did not hesitate to invade Ukraine and Georgia, organized a coup in Montenegro, funded xenophobic political parties across Europe, and crippled Estonia with cyberattacks.

“No matter how much Putin flatters the President, he is a KGB thug who jails political opponents, encourages/orders the murder of Russian dissidents and defectors at home and abroad, and who directs a military that bombs women, children, and the injured in hospitals in Syria.”

The Sasse tweetstorm abated with advice for President Trump. “I don't think President Trump should be dignifying Putin with this meeting,” Sasse said. “When Reagan met with Gorbachev, he did so from a position of strength & moral clarity about the evil empire that the Soviet Union was, and w/ a clear purpose to end the Soviet Union's threat to the US.”

“President Trump should have only one message for Putin tomorrow,” Sasse concluded. “Quit messing with America.”

But Sasse wasn’t completely finished yet. President Trump, who has yet to condemn the Russian cyberattacks on the US addressed in the indictment, tweeted this morning, it was to attack the “Rigged Witch Hunt” rather than the Russian assault on the foundation of American democracy.

“Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!” the president tweeted before his historic closed-door meeting with the neo-Soviet ruler.

“A better thing, Mr. President, would be to declare: ‘Russia is the enemy of America and our allies, and we will expose and respond to their continued cyber-attacks against our nation,’” Sasse replied.

Welcome back to Twitter, Sen. Sasse. We have missed your outspokenness and honesty over the past few months.

Originally published on The Resurgent