Illegal Voter Investigation – Mr. President, Please Let It Go

Mr. President:

A friend of mine shared a great piece of wisdom with me 35 years ago: “Something not worth doing is not worth doing well.”

I believe the President of the United States has plenty to do just fulfilling his campaign promises and doing his job.  Please find a gracious way to let go of this focus on the popular vote.  It is not worth doing.

Think of the effort and expense involved; the country needs every minute, and every penny devoted to national needs.  One of our needs is to get our country back together again.  Prolonging the rancor that drove so many Americans to distraction cannot make things better with your former opponents.

How about a cost benefit analysis?  Ask yourself, what would change?  What would be the gains?  What would be the costs, financially, politically, and personally?

  • If you are 100% right, or partially right and had a majority
  • If you are partially right and had less than the majority
  • If the investigation finds no significant voter fraud

Why give the enemy an opportunity to inflict more wounds in a fruitless battle?

Sir, you have already won the war.  Let us have peace.

Advertisements

Conflation – Path to “Newspeak”

Civilized humans are susceptible to manipulation through language.

Benjamin Lee Whorf championed the idea that people think in words and cannot think of things for which they have no words.  “Whorfism” has proven less than absolute by scientists in various experiments tied to specific words.  These experiments show that concepts are more important than words.  (Interesting that some scientists take Whorfism literally.)

George Orwell’s 1949 novel 1984 holds prescient, dark images of a dystopian world.  Orwell illustrates the impact of interpretation on thinking with three ideas: “Newspeak,” “doublethink,” and “thoughtcrime.”

Newspeak refers to redefinition of words and verbal construction to promote a single view and eliminate conflicting views; e.g. substitute a favored word for an out-of-favor word; insist on “illegal immigrant,” or “undocumented worker,” in place of “unregistered alien,” or “unauthorized foreign national,” or even “migrant.”  The connotations of “immigrant,” vs. “alien,” “migrant,” or “refugee,” are emotionally powerful, as millions of immigrants are here legally, either registered aliens, (Green Card), or naturalized citizens.  Conflating “immigrants” with “unregistered aliens” stirs up resentment among immigrants, and sympathy for unregistered aliens.

The “code words” and euphemisms used by politicians and activists often fall into this “Newspeak” category.  Recently, “Fascist,” “Collateral Damage,” “Justice Involved Individuals,” “Climate Change,” “Affordable Care.”

Extracts from:  http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/09/george-orwell-newspeak/  George Orwell’s appendix to 1984

“The primary aim of Newspeak is to reduce the meaning of language as well as the number of words possible.  The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.”

(Doublethink – resembles Japanese Zen koans in that illogical ideas are juxtaposed, combined and represented as truth.)

“war is peace 
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength” 

(Today, “illegal is legal.”)

thoughtcrime, a word used in the novel to describe the act of thinking socially unacceptable thoughts or holding opinions that are ideologically distinct from The Party’s. This word has its origins in a Japanese term; however, Orwell’s novel popularized the term.”

(Today, we call this “politically correct,” and “hate speech;” this makes dissent heretical, even criminal.)

Thought police, the term for the group in Nineteen Eighty-Four that monitored the populace for any signs of unorthodox thought or action, has also become popular to signify any organization that attempts to suppress freedom of thought.”

(Mobs, media and social media serve this function today.  Think “Black Lives Matter,” “hate crimes,” and “Illegal immigrants”)

Look for examples of these ideas in the news.  I think you might be surprised how much others are guiding your thoughts and words.

Children Threatened in Public School Classrooms – Federal Laws Deny Them Protection from Disruption

Civilized societies set behavioral norms, and prescribe consequences for violating those norms.  For example, it is not okay to harm another person without cause; it is not alright to harass someone, or “disturb the peace.”  Families can set broader boundaries inside their homes, but not in public.  However, sadly misguided federal laws and rules subject public school children and their teachers to violent, threatening, disturbing, unpredictable, disruptive behavior every day, in the name of “equal education.”  This violates common sense and the rights of the other children to a peaceful education.

In the so-called “real world” normal people do not put up with violent or disruptive people.  The disruptive person is usually fired from a job in a work environment, ejected or arrested in social or public environments.  Medical treatment is indicated, to the extent emotional disabilities or mental illness are involved; punishment and fines are indicated otherwise.  In other words, society separates or isolates disturbed citizens and insulates normal citizens from their disruptions.

I do not know any normal, emotionally healthy people who are made to endure the disturbances of disruptive adults.  Why do we subject our children and public school teachers to behavior normal society does not allow?  Most teachers are not trained psychologists, and none of the students are trained to accept and deal with such frightening, threatening behavior either.  Even if they were, there is no excuse for making public school so trying, and perhaps harmful.

 The current federal laws paint children with “disabilities” and public schools with a broad brush when they require inclusion and mainstreaming without stipulation.  Do they think normal classrooms are therapy for violent and disturbed students?  Do they think the distress and disruption help normal students learn?  Disturbed, violent, and disabled students need added, special resources and treatment that normal students do not.  Why subject the whole class to special efforts that scare them, delay normal learning and deny them the knowledge they are present to obtain?

Special needs children deserve to be taught the same knowledge as other kids.  Many special needs children are not disruptive.  However, their special needs may require different teaching approaches and intensive, trained, instruction to attain that knowledge.

The advocates of “mainstreaming” tout the marginal benefits to special needs students, but blithely avoid discussion of the serious detriment to “mainstream” students and the teachers that must cope with the stress and interference required to produce those benefits.  This attempt at social engineering is so obviously lame, it cannot stand a reality check.  Does anyone remember when even whispering in class, and passing notes were punishable infractions?  They were infractions because they distracted students and teachers from the purpose of the class.  Has this idea expired from political correctness?

If the needs of the few can be met without expense to the many, I say, so be it.  Find another way to fulfill the needs of violent, threatening, and disruptive students.

The March? -Fog of Vague Purposes

Remember “Occupy Wall Street?” More currently, “Black Lives Matter?”  And the latest example, “Women’s March?”  They have this much in common:

  • Loose Organization
  • Diverse Membership
  • Aggregate Complaints
  • Unfocused Intentions
  • Non-Specific Proposals
  • Outdoor Meetings
  • Catchy Names

“Occupy Wall Street” was pretty much just news items about their encampment.  “Black Lives Matter” fails to note that Federal statistics show that 80-90% of murdered “black lives that matter” are victims of black killers.  Half of all murder victims, nationally, are black; blacks are less than 15% of the population.  Where is that protest and call to action?

In the context of this protest, do they mean “Black, Mexican, Muslim, LGBTQ, Women’s Lives Matter?”  Or do they mean “Black, Young, Men’s Lives Matter,” but this just happens to be a women’s march?  Just what do they mean?

It seems that the “Women’s March” was all about disappointment, fear, and frustration transformed into pink anger.  Disappointment that Hillary did not win, fear that women’s rights will be undermined, and frustration that women do not receive equal pay.

Trump became the effigy to blame for everything.

Misogyny:  How many participants, do you think, could cite specific instances when President Trump recently disrespected women who were not attacking him?  Where is the acknowledgement of the nonchalant treatment of wives and women by iconic presidents such as JFK, and Bill Clinton?

If the marchers are promoting equality for women, his business organizations reflect great respect for women by hiring them, promoting them into management and paying them well; sounds like equality to me.  Why not ask women who work for the Trump organization how they feel about their misogynist boss?

Immigration:  First, Trump got trapped in the “Newspeak” of the way we use “immigrant.”  Many foreign nationals, from many countries, apply for visas, “green cards,” and citizenship every year.  Those who gain permanent residence or citizenship can rightly be called immigrants.  A great number of Americans are immigrants or children of immigrants.

The proponents of unlimited immigration and aligned journalists fought to not use the legal term “alien.”  They insisted on substituting “______-immigrant” until it became commonplace.  The problem is that non-hyphenated, legal immigrants heard these “_______-immigrants” being criticized and threatened, and felt included in that group; they took personally the anger, fear, and distain.

By verbally lumping the “_______-immigrants” together with immigrant citizens, they built support for their open-borders philosophy.  If we had stuck with “aliens,” and “foreign nationals,” the citizens would not have felt combined with them.

Exactly, what did he say about Mexicans?  Not just the clips, the whole statements. He said that among the illegal migrants were, drug smugglers, human traffickers, fugitive criminals, including murders, and rapists.  Is that true?  Yes.  Trump’s opponents extracted this description and implied that he meant ALL Mexicans fit these profiles.

Muslims:  Trump wants to limit and vet prospective refugees entering the US from Islamist countries tied to terrorism.  He wants Muslim communities to help identify and thwart jihadist terrorists.

Women who live in Muslim countries might not be sympathetic with the complaints of the marchers; certainly, they would or could not march on their capitals protesting.  Why not ask Muslim-American women what they would face if they went home to Arabia and Africa?  What would you face going there as a Christian?  Count your blessings that you live here in America.

There are no government proposals or actions right now that threaten women; he just took office Friday.  All the rhetoric is about what could happen; what rights they fear might be lost; what affronts they fear they may face.  Fear is a factor, but not fact

The one thing that stands out to me is concern about reversing Roe v. Wade.  I understand opposition to abortion challenges.  I support safe, informed, reasoned choice for every woman.  So, focus on defending that right or you risk people writing you off as generally disappointed with the election results, and righteously irritated at the challenges of being a woman.

The last point is this:  What do you propose, aside from replacing Donald Trump?  Many commentators have shrugged their shoulders about the purposes of the march because the marchers are not clear about what they are championing.  It was a shame that all the time, money, effort, and commitment it took to get people on the streets ended in a fog of vague purposes.

NPR, Please Take Away “The Takeaway”

Update 9/21/17:  I challenge NPR to either, 1.  Stop airing “The Takeaway.” or 2.  Add a program that is as conservative as “The Takeway” is liberal.  

From what I have heard on the show, not one feature, interview, or report portrays or supports even moderately conservative issues, proposals, or actions.  They use only readily identifiable liberal news sources, interview only liberal congress members, experts from liberal think-tanks or universities, or radical celebrities.  

I invite the ombudsman, or whoever has programing input, to read transcripts of the shows and describe their contents compared to the proclaimed position of NPR as being unbiased.

I would not mind if they added Libertarian, Populist, or any other points of view to balance the atrocious bias of non-stop, leftish propaganda spewing from this program.

**********************************************************************************

I read, watch, and listen to as much news as I can.  I try to take in all sorts of ideas,  from various points of view, and sort them into my version of a “reasoned” view.  Although I tolerate them, I find extreme narrators, articles and programs abhorrent and unworthy of serious consideration, yet they  have their audiences.

Public radio depends on tax dollars and donations; that makes them responsible to stay away from radical views and political campaigning.  My favorite radio source is KERA, a local NPR radio station, which carries the BBC, as well as national and local news.  KERA stands out in excellence, variety, and quality, as long as they stick to journalism, news reporting, and entertainment. 

Unfortunately, their programming includes programs disguised as news that have social and political agendas.  They use euphemisms such as:

“We cover news that does not usually get covered.”  This is code for items that do not fit the balanced or factual standards of journalism, such as advocating illegal immigration, amplifying micro-minority tragedies, and, entirely opinionated, leftish commentary.

“We put different spins on the news.”  Code for biased reinterpretations of events from very liberal political or social views.

Another tactic is choosing interview and show participants with very biased points of view; the hosts feed them leading questions and suggestions, or allow them to digress into unrelated political rants.  Sometimes hosts or guests use dismissive or derisive inflections when discussing or describing conservative or non-progressive people or groups.

Taxpayers deserve better from publicly funded radio.

Donald Trump has caused those that pretended to be journalists to show their true “blue,” liberal colors.

We all have our biases; most of us are blind to our prejudices; we see the world through our beliefs.

I do not have to comment on Diane Rehm, as she and her show retired last year.

Today, Jan 2, 2017, I heard another blatant politically slanted discussion on “The Takeaway” radio show on KERA, Dallas/Fort Worth.  This show, sponsored by the New York Times, has never mentioned any ideas other than “progressive” ones.  The criticism of the conservatives, and Donald Trump is non-stop.  This show is as leftish as it gets.

John Hockenberry, was talking to the Istanbul correspondent for “buzzfeed.com” about the terrorist shootings at a nightclub there.  While describing the turmoil and confusion, secular and religious accusations, the correspondent said something to the effect of “this is what I fear when Donald Trump takes office in the US.”; and we are supposed to be a democracy, and he did not really win.” What???  Hockenberry referred to and repeated this negative notion when talking about how we can change ourselves in the new year.

(I have my own discussion of the electoral college vs popular vote in my blog, https://2thinkis2be.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/sour-grapes-over-electoral-college-congress-is-designed-exactly-like-it/

and I know that the popular vote rant is the last bastion of the losing candidate and her supporters.)

NPR and KERA tout their unbiased news, but this show is nothing like unbiased.  What can we do to keep such divisive and partisan programming off the air on public radio?

To:  ELIZABETH JENSEN, Npr ombudsman

From:  Von Smith, v.smith@von-mail.com, KERA

Date: 1/11/17

Once again, NPR gave 15 minutes of air time to an anti-Trump liberal to denigrate the president elect.  The former speech writer for Obama, expressed fear, dismay, disrespect, disappointment, and distain for Donald Trump’s election, wrapped in a “response” to President Obama’s farewell speech.  Why did the interviewer allow and include these unrelated, partisan comments?

Where is the objectivity, civility, and courtesy, or at least someone expressing an opposing view?

On another front, a program featuring Cokie Roberts, was promoted earlier this morning.

Her February, 2016 opinion column condemning Donald Trump (http://cjonline.com/opinion/2016-02-26/steve-and-cokie-roberts-gop-must-stop-trump-now#), triggered this response:

“NPR’s senior vice president for news and editorial director, Michael Oreskes, said the opinion column indicates Roberts has not been sufficiently identified to listeners as a commentator. Additionally, he wrote in a memo to staffers that news executives would work with her to refine the contours of her job.”

 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/14/470340825/npr-clarifies-cokie-roberts-role-after-anti-trump-column

Exactly what refinements have been instituted?  Have her opinions changed?

“Commentator,” and “Pundit,” are terms for advocate or proponent or partisan that many people misunderstand, versus, “Journalist,” or “Reporter,” or “Unbiased.”  “Political Commentator,” still does not clarify her positions on current affairs.  At minimum, NPR should state her political position when introducing her (and any other person expressing political beliefs)

In a March, 2016 blog, Cokie Roberts, NPR and the impossibility of objectivity, Mark Swain gave this reference”

In an interview with Roberts on Monday morning, NPR host David Greene (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/14/470340825/npr-clarifies-cokie-roberts-role-after-anti-trump-column) said this to Roberts: “Objectivity is so fundamental to what we do. Can you blame people like me for being a little disappointed to hear you come out and take a personal position on something like this in a campaign?”

 Roberts very sensibly explained that she was not a full-time reporter covering politics but a commentator engaging in commentary, and implied furthermore that Donald Trump’s rise is the kind of exceptional situation that demands greater assertiveness on the part of someone like her. “There are times in our history,” she told Greene, “when you might be disappointed if I didn’t take a position like that.”

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/15/cokie-roberts-npr-and-the-impossibility-of-objectivity/?utm_term=.df011687d51d

In August, last year, she called Trump supporters “morally tainted,” on MSNBC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cokie-roberts-donald-trump_us_57b45b9fe4b0edfa80da567c

Spotlighting Cokie Roberts, in addition to programs such as “The Takeaway,” “Latino USA,” “Fresh Air,” etc., make me question the neutrality of the “news” on NPR.

 

 

Animal Farm – Social Algebra

The Power of Words

Ayn Rand authored several books that captured the attentions of whole generations of rational American readers during a cataclysmic battle between individualism and collectivism.  She was born Jewish in Russia in St. Petersburg, in 1905; prophetically, this was a year of Revolution that began with the tsar’s Imperial Guard firing on a peaceful workers’ demonstration, killing 200, wounding 800, and ended with the formation of the first Duma (lower house of parliament).

The turmoil continued with the people and the aristocracy battling over the supremacy of the tsar.  Ayn grew up during the First World War, the rise of the Bolsheviks, the fall of the Tsar, the death of Lenin, and the union of the communist soviets.

She graduated from Petrograd State University in 1924, 2 years into the formation of the Soviet Union.  She came to the United States in 1926, and became a US citizen in 1931. She witnessed the collectivism of the USSR, and the rise of Stalin, from America, as the global depression suffocated economies and hope; as the world precipitated into war.

Her plays and books advocated reason over emotion, and individualism over collectivism.  Among my favorites are “Anthem,” and “Atlas Shrugged.”  “Anthem” describes a world in which there is no word for “I” or “me;” “mine” or “yours.”  All personal pronouns are collective.  She demonstrated the power of language in controlling the minds of people.

The Myth of Equality = Good

“Atlas Shrugged” tells the story of talented, creative, productive people whose individual efforts and contributions benefit average citizens; they profit personally from their efforts.  When these people are hounded and what they produce is confounded, and impounded, they escape to a hidden, peaceful, prosperous place populated by others like themselves.  They were “inequal” in the parlance of today.  Their society lost the benefits of their gifts.

George Orwell wrote a book, “Animal Farm,” which was required reading in my high school English class.  It tells the story of farm animals taking over the farm because of inequality.  They establish 7 commandments of “Animalism,” the seventh of which was “All Animals are Equal.”  The operation of “Animalism” proved very unequal.

A Call to Collectivism

Now we have lots of vague talk about “inequality.”

Question:  Where and when have equalities ever existed among humans?

Certainly, humans have been born all over the globe and across a wide spectrum of attributes, but nothing has ever been equal on any measurable attribute.  The only “equality” experiments I know of are utopian communes, and communist governments, none of which have had durable successes, except perhaps, to spread poverty and suffering equally among members and comrades.

The most glaring example of equality today, is North Korea.  I am sure the average American pines and prays to have that thrill of starvation and repression in the name of equality.  Oh, and some comrades are more equal than others.

The Absence of Definition & Context

The term “income inequality” is not a recent invention.  Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, in 1754.  He describes two types of inequality:

Natural, Physical– differences one human’s body and another

Ethical, Moral – wealth, nobility, power, personal merit.

He proposes that natural, solitary man is a savage who lacks language, reason, and society. He is not motivated by fear of death, because he cannot conceive of it. He is only corrupted by social association with other men, causing:

  • Competition – best dancer, singer, strongest, fastest, handsomest, smartest
  • Self-Comparison with Others – ranking, e.g. second-best, IQ, “the Joneses”
  • Hatred – envy, jealousy, covetous, fear, anger
  • Urge for Power – dominance, entitlement, control

This led to the source and basis of inequality:  private property.

Angus Maddison, a respected economic historian tracked global income inequality of 25 nations since 1820.  His findings show increases in globalization were the major factor in disparity of incomes.  Retreats from globalization resulted in lower inequality.

The recent rants about “inequality” sound like envy to me.  Envy is not constructive.  The authors neither define equality nor any acceptable level of inequality; they also omit the context, methods and means of achieving less inequality; the ranters do not appear to have a clue about the sources of wealth, business success, or any idea what they are proposing.  This is evident from the example they have chosen to shock the reading public.

The Eight Richest People on Earth have wealth equal to half the people on Earth.  Sounds amazing, until one does the math or looks at who these men are.  Wealth is defined as: $Assets – $Debts.  It does not mean income.  These eight men have $485 billion dollars’ worth of valuable assets more than what they owe*.

Who What Arena Billions**
Bill Gates * Microsoft Computer Software           91.0
Amancio Ortega* Zara and Inditex Fashion Retail           71.2
Warren Buffett* Berkshire Hathaway Investments           73.6
Carlos Slim Helu* America Movil Telecom           49.4
Jeff Bezos* Amazon Computer Retail           67.2
Mark Zuckerberg* Facebook Computer Social Media           50.8
Larry Ellison* Oracle Computer Software           41.8
Michael Bloomberg* Bloomberg Investments           40.0

*Created their own companies

**Bloomberg reports as of 12/31/2016

I am not astonished at these numbers, nor that six of the eight are Americans, nor that five of the eight are in technology.  Look at what they have built.  Think of the services and products they have created and distributed to willing buyers.  Their wealth is the result of creating value for others.  All of them created the companies that represent most of their wealth.

What astonishes me is the fact that 3.6 billion people, (including children) own an average of $135 each.  Who do you know who has $135 total wealth?  Think; who owes more than they own?  Anyone who has a job, rents an apartment, has no savings, uses credit cards, and borrows money to buy a car, or go to college.  During the recent recession, plenty of people were “under water” on their mortgaged homes.  That is here in America; I am sure Asia, the Middle East, India, Central America, South America, and Africa have plenty of poor people with no prospects for improvement.  Whose responsibility are they?

It is unclear what the article is suggesting, but the point is lost on me.  It sounds like envy.

The only thing this article suggests to me is, that if you took every penny from the world’s 8 richest people, and distributed it among the 3.6 billion poorest people, they each would have $135 more than they have now, and we would not have the services and goods these eight produce.

Our Glass House

One thing that stands out about the debate over equality is the way Americans limit their geographic boundaries.  We seem to talk about inequality only within national borders.  Income and wealth disparity is greatest among nations.

If you want to silence a discussion of inequality, mention this: The USA has 4.5% of the world’s population and owns 33.2% of the world’s wealth. We Americans would have to give up 86.4% of what we have, to equalize wealth with the other 7.2 billion people in the world.  Is that what the authors propose?  I doubt it.

One estimate of the total wealth on our planet is $255 quadrillion dollars.  That would mean about $36,000 per person when divided by 7.5 billion people.  However, infrastructure, education, access, communications, logistics, culture, climate, security, resources, health, age, and many other elements are not evenly distributed or available.  Some societies do not allow women to own property or have money unless it is controlled by a man.  Other societies are so corrupt that what they have is stolen from them at every turn.

History suggests that even if all assets were evenly distributed, the money would soon be redistributed to the few who provide the goods and services for the many.

Bloomberg’s listing of billionaires includes 197 whose total wealth is $3 trillion.  I do not know what percentage of the world’s population that matches, but it is about 15% of the $20 trillion national debt of the USA.  That would be $2.86 for every person in the world; $62,700 for each man, woman, and child in America.  What would be the average wealth of an American if we subtracted $62,700 from their net worth to pay the debt?

A Bigger Pie

Consider this:  those who decry inequality pose it as a problem, but offer no solutions.  What would the authors of the inequality protest recommend to raise the wealth of the earth’s inhabitants without confiscating the value created by others?

Donald Trump – The Matryoshka Candidate?

I am amazed at the number, scope, and continuous flow of speculations about Donald Trump, as president-elect.  Now we have an American, billionaire, capitalist, accused of being a Russian sympathizer, and even a collaborator with Russia’s Putin to win the election.  Does that sound like the Russian version of “The Manchurian Candidate” to you?  (FYI:  a Matryoshka is one of those hollow, Russian, nested, wooden dolls with smaller and smaller dolls inside.)  I guess there are no limits on imagination, enmity, paranoia, malice, and disappointment.

Those who oppose Donald Trump, and those who are left bitter, dazed, angry, and confused by his election as President do not need to be rational in their relentless attacks on anything Trump.  Those accusing him of being soft on Russia, a Putin sycophant, and naïve about our enemies might take a minute to reflect on how silly that sounds.

Is it soft to sell some rich Russians overpriced condos and land in the US?  Is it sycophantic to use Putin to criticize political opponents as being weak?  Is it naïve to get the Russians to pay premium prices to have the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow?  Do I hear a no?

Until now, Mr. Trump’s interest in Russia has been limited to money, i.e. making money, not losing it, and not giving it away.  All his dealings with Russians have been real estate in the US, or visiting Moscow for a US-based beauty pageant.  Trump has never met Putin face-to-face, or made any deals with him.  Putin even cancelled a scheduled meeting with Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.  Does that sound like love to you?  I believe Trump could continue to make money from Russians without being President, and without being friends with Putin; therefore, I do not think there is a sinister link. What else would he have to gain?

Some cite the friendly, respectful tone of comments and letters between the men.  A friendly demeanor is not the same as friendship; sometimes negotiations can benefit from pleasant diplomacy.

Others suggest that Putin sees Trump as weaker than Clinton.  Do we have some evidence that Trump is as passive as Obama has been in foreign matters, such as Crimea and Syria?  Or maybe evidence that Putin is afraid of Hillary after meeting her as Secretary of State?

Let us see what happens after January 20th.