Quantcast
U.S. & World

Questions about hacking swirl as Trump enters critical week

Comments

Return To Article
  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 10, 2017 10:06 a.m.

    @nichiro-san

    Thanks for the reply.

    You made the statement that I am drawing conclusions that people are thinking that the Russian hack helped sway the election. No, you're wrong, read the post's lib's are saying exactly that.

    I was simply replying in the context that some americans believe the outcome of the election could have been different otherwise.

    Also thanks for regurgitating what I aleady know about the Russian hack as if I needed the refresher. But you stated what resulted in the hack was the release of damaging info to the Hillary campaign. Care to expound on adding any false info that the Russians put out there that actually damaged her reputation? Because I havnt heard anything. Infact all I have heard is the info released was the factual information found within the emails. So one must ask themselves something, are you mad that the hack happened period. Or that the hack revealed just how corrupt the Hillary campaign was? Exposed by the hack or FBI doesnt matter facts are facts and liberals are mad because they put all of the hopes on a corrupt politician that is simply not fit to be a president.

  • Nichiro-san Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 4:25 p.m.

    Sportsfan123 - Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 10:54 a.m.

    No one, particularly the intelligence community, is saying (contrary to Donald Trump) that Russian interference did not impact the 2016 presidential election. Voters voted as they did, and Hillary received a majority of votes over-all but lost in the electoral college. The Russians did not affect voting machine results nor did they change paper ballots. What they did was launch a concerted effort to damage Hillary Clinton and affect public opinion in a propaganda war that involved attacks on American computer systems and releasing information considered damaging to the Hillary campaign.

    There is no proof of any particular method for Hillary's loss. This does not, however, mitigate that the action took place and no one is claiming that the hacking, in itself, was the cause. You are drawing conclusions for which there is insufficient data. Let's be clear on this.

    Perhaps you might try and become familiar about political campaigns. Maybe you should look at the strategy of the Trump campaign during the primary and analyze the techniques used to win. But having Russia involve itself is wrong.

  • Cheshire Cat Bronx, NY
    Jan. 9, 2017 4:13 p.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    Jan. 9, 2017 12:05 p.m.

    As a partisan Donald Trump apologist, your objections are noted.

    Sportsfan123 - Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 10:54 a.m.

    The question is not, "Did Russia swing the election in favor of Trump?" There is no way to prove that, just as there is not way to ascertain how many voters were influenced by the Russia/WikiLeaks email dumps.

    The fact is that a foreign power, Russia, interfered in our presidential election to influence voters in hopes that Trump would be successful. The Russians wanted Trump and not Hillary. This was not simple cyber intrusion to gain information for use in the propaganda wars and usual spying effort on the part of either country. It was a direct assault on our core way of transitioning from one president to another.

    Also, the emails did not constitute the Hillary scandal. It was a private server. The server was never broached according to investigators, but the server was considered a violation of federal law. The emails only provided information on how presidential campaigns work. You need to understand this point in order to provide substance and validity to your position.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 3:57 p.m.

    prelax - Murray, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 12:30 a.m.

    "Clapper needs to be replaced."

    All of these @at long last arguments against James Clapper are speculation. However, he is going to resign in the next two weeks and replaced by a conspiracy theorist and Russian advocate. Like Sean Hannity, there are those in this country who truly believe "Make Russia Great Again."

    Many go to great lengths to defend Donald Trump, even to the point of making absurd and ridiculous statements. However, Trump's personality aside, his policy views are legitimate areas of concern to many Americans. He has receive the full intelligence briefing which many of us are not privileged to see, and yet he makes claims which many may question as "lies" when and if that intelligence emerges. Republican and Democratic lawmakers will see this evidence and we can look forward to their statements next week.

    Aside from Trump's schoolyard tweets, there were 17 intelligence agencies involved in the report released on Friday. This is not just James Clapper. It is the people who work and risk their lives for this country whose integrity is being questioned by the president-elect.

  • Jim Chee Ka'anapali, HI
    Jan. 9, 2017 3:48 p.m.

    at long last. . . - Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 9, 2017 8:31 a.m.

    "Karen R. - I would suggest a healthy distrust of anyone who has demonstrably lied under oath."

    Is your concern about lying restricted only to lying "under oath"? What if anyone lies about anything major, do you still trust that person? What if your auto mechanic lies to you about unnecessary repairs required for your car? What if your doctor lies to you? What about your spouse? What about your religious leaders? Because they were not under oath you should continue to believe them?

    Donald Trump has been lying throughout the campaign over 70% of the time as determined by fact checkers. Hillary Clinton lied multiple times, but she is vilified while Trump is regarded as "honest" by his apologists.

    Most of us would agree that security and intelligence officials don't tell the truth because it is in their position not to reveal secrets. That doesn't mean it's right. But it does mean that lying, the perception of lying, and the partisan views regarding lying are confused at best. Distrusting James Clapper for lying and not Trump leaves a question as to motive and personal interest.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 1:59 p.m.

    Trump must be a very patient man not to laugh out loud when Obama gives advice about Russia. After all, his track record isn’t very good.

    Russian reset – disaster
    Not a geopolitical threat – disaster
    “After my election I have more flexibility." -disaster
    Crimea – disaster
    Russians in Syria – disaster

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 9, 2017 12:34 p.m.

    @ at long last

    I did as you asked and noticed again that you didn't answer my question: Should we now distrust Trump too, who per Reince Priebus does accept Clapper, et al.'s findings? If your answer is, "I distrust all politicians because they lie all the time about everything," I don't believe you for two reasons: 1) even Trump lied only 70% of the time during the campaign; and 2) if you did believe it you'd have no basis for the hope you're placing in Trump. So it comes across to me as a bit of a fallback position from one that now looks insupportable.

    Look, it appears that even Trump has now abandoned his "the intelligence agencies can't be trusted" position. My suspicion is that many will soon detect this pattern too, where they dig in for the man only to find that he has picked up and left them dangling. But fully expecting them to follow him to the next front line, of course!

    What a guy.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    Jan. 9, 2017 12:05 p.m.

    Swirl?

    This is liberal propaganda, and rubbish. When will people stop being deceived?

    No proof the Russians hacked the corrupt DNC.

    Using fake news to stir contention is deplorable.

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 10:54 a.m.

    Some how Russia was responsible for Trump getting elected. Yet they have flat out stated that no vote counting machines were compromised. So exactly how did Russia swing the vote in Trumps favor? So they put fake disparaging adds out into the social media networks, was that fake info anything to do with the e-mail scandal which was the largest security breach in US history. Or was it Padesta's scam he put on Bernie Sanders, and the paid for professional protestors used to create chaos at Trump rallies.

    Maybe it was the Huma Abadin scandal tied to the Hillary email scandal, or the DNC chair forwarding questions to Hillary before the debates, the DNC chair was forced to resign from CNN after than one.

    You know after hearing about Benghazi, the easy button reset with the Russians and the pay to play scandal with the Clinton foundation, and the list goes on. What? if anything has been said negatively about Clinton that could be possibly worse than what she did herself that got Trump elected?

    Be careful what you claim to be the reason Hillary lost, claiming that Russia got Trump elected and stating that Hillary got more votes in the same breath is simply rediculous.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 9, 2017 10:11 a.m.

    Karen R. - Please go back and read my comment again. Especially the part that says I distrust all politicians because they lie all the time about everything. I am not a voter for Trump, but am one who hopes he can right the ship, as it were.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 9, 2017 9:52 a.m.

    @ at long last

    "I would suggest a healthy distrust of anyone who has demonstrably lied under oath."

    So "under oath" is the wiggle room given Trump? Because a lie isn't as much a lie when it isn't uttered under oath? C'mon.

    The fact is, Priebus, Trump's Chief of Staff, has come out and stated that Trump does accept the evidence that Russia was behind the hacking. Those who can't accept this seem to be hung up on another issue that has everything to do with partisan interest, but little to do with national interest.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Jan. 9, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    Hey FT -

    RE: "The whole country should hope Comrade Trump is successful the next four years."

    That depends on what you mean by "successful."

    If he can actually help our nation, then yes I wish him success.

    But it's obvious that the unworkable policies he touts, backed up by unqualified administrators will only harm the nation.

    So NO . . . I do not wish Trump success in inflicting unworkable policies, stupidity, and harm upon our nation and the world.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 8:59 a.m.

    Clapper - - National Intel Director – Appointed by Obama 8/2010

    Comey - FBI - Appointed by Obama 9/2013

    Brennan - CIA – Appointed by Obama 3/2013

    Only a fool would believe this isn't just a political stunt by the democrats to discredit Trump.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    Look at the timeline.
    9/5/16 - Obama tells Putin to "Cut it out" in a meeting at the G20 in China, so he had enough intel about the hacking way back then. (Oddly, that's the same time Hillary was throwing out the Russian theory on the campaign stump. Hmm.)

    At his press conference in December Obama said he withheld sanctions until after the election because he thought it might cause Putin to hack the voting machines.

    Obama would wait to expel the diplomats until just before Christmas, a full six weeks after the election.

    Two things strike me about Obama's behavior:
    1) He lacked urgency about this issue, dragging his feet for maximum political damage to Trump.

    2) Obama himself tampered with the election by giving intel to Hillary in September that Trump didn't get until four months later.

    The MSM made a far bigger deal about Russian collusion than they ever did about the content of the hacked emails. If anything, that helped Hillary get a few votes.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 9, 2017 8:31 a.m.

    Karen R. - I would suggest a healthy distrust of anyone who has demonstrably lied under oath.
    I distrust all politicians as they lie repeatedly about everything, but not under oath very often. Bill Clinton was an exception. For the head of our intelligence agencies to lie under oath to congress (and the American people) is unforgivable.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 8:21 a.m.

    The whole country should hope Comrade Trump is successful the next four years.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 9, 2017 5:49 a.m.

    @ at long last

    "Why would any citizen ever trust [Clapper's] word again about anything?"

    If only the same disdain for dishonesty were applied to our illustrious P-E...

    Also, one citizen who apparently does trust Clapper's word is Trump's Chief of Staff, who spoke on behalf of his dear leader. So should we now distrust him too?

  • Nichiro-san Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 3:27 a.m.

    During the 2015-2016 presidential primary campaign and later the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump often spoke of his "secret" plan to destroy ISIS. He often said he had a plan, but he couldn't divulge specifics because to do so would alert the enemy so they might take countermeasures.

    Trump also says this about his negotiation strategy. If you tell the opposition what you plan to do and how you're going to do it, you give you strategy away and come out on the short end of the stick.

    Similarly, our military planners never give away the store by revealing their strategy and tactics going into battle. That is a sure way to lose men and material. Also it can be considered treasonous to tell the enemy valuable information that could be detrimental to U.S. interests.

    This is the same argument being used to not reveal confidential information our security and intelligence communities have developed from the cyber attacks launched against American interests, particularly attempts to affect our presidential election, disparage Hillary Clinton, and help Trump become president. Cyber is a tool of war in today's world, not a partisan issue.

  • Cheshire Cat Bronx, NY
    Jan. 9, 2017 2:59 a.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    Jan. 8, 2017 9:43 p.m.

    Are you suggesting that Donald Trump won because the election was rigged and the American people were cheated? He did win didn't he? And don't those who win usually by cheating? That's what Trump said would be if he lost. He's supposed to be the consummate winner and only loses when cheated.

    Do you always just regurgitate what you hear from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Do you have no other news sources?

    And where does Trump get his information? Same place? Others suggest he just pulls it out of a void space.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 2:51 a.m.

    Then, in an attempt to quell critical reporting of his campaign, he constantly accused the media of being "bad" and "unfair" to get his supporters agitated and angry with the press so they would not believe what they read in their newspapers and saw on television news shows.

    This was consummate propaganda manipulation to get people believing he wasn't being treated fairly; they should not believe what others may be saying about himself. If they were to believe anything, they were to believe him or his surrogates who spread his message.

    Now we are seeing this same strategy today with the president-elect trying to alter reality to fit his agenda. He no longer talks about the election being "rigged" and he being "cheated" because he won. But he continues to vilify those like the media and the intelligence services because they provide information that he believes (probably rightfully) goes against his self-interest and self-promotion.

    Trump doesn't want you reading 5000 word news items or listen to 15 minute commentaries about what he is doing. He wants you to read 140-character tweets on his latest pronouncements and narrative.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 2:39 a.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    Jan. 8, 2017 9:43 p.m.

    "Questions should be on criminal activity such as rigging, and cheating the American election process. This should be the critical issue."

    Since each state is responsible for its elections, exactly how was this so-called "rigging and cheating" accomplished. Were voting machines compromised? What voters were denied the vote? What evidence do you have from a reliable source with verifiable data that people ineligible to vote did in fact vote? Was voter suppression in effect in voting districts and who was targeted in this suppression effort? We voting lists purged by unethical voting officials? Where? And if such "rigging and cheating" did occur, did it favor the winner as such activity usually does?

    Before you make such broad statements, please tells us where you got your information. Were you a voting official who witnessed first-hand such illegal activity? Or did you just hear this and extrapolated in your mind that a great conspiracy was afoot?

    Donald Trump talked about "rigging and cheating" at his rallies in anticipation of losing the election and he was trying to manipulate his audience.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 2:31 a.m.

    Donald Trump is trying to change the discussion from a cyber attack on American computer systems to a deficiency in the Democratic Party and ignore the activity was initiated and carried out by a foreign power to impact a presidential election. He calls the investigation a "partisan witch hunt" because he doesn't want anyone looking into the hacking of computers.

    That the hacking, if accepted, may have affected the voting of American citizens is something he certainly cannot refuses to acknowledge. Now his supporters say that Democrats got hacked because they were too stupid to prevent the attacks. However, they neglect to admit that the proof of hacking is the release of emails, and that because Republican emails were not released is proof that they were not hacked.

    While Trump apologists say that only Democrats were compromised, there is no evidence that Republicans were also compromised because no Republican emails were released. Effectively, they are being disingenuous since only release of emails confirms hacking, it does not prove no hacking took place.

    The critical factor in this is that the hacking by a foreign entity took place at all.

  • Jim Chee Ka'anapali, HI
    Jan. 9, 2017 2:17 a.m.

    worf - McAllen, TX
    Jan. 8, 2017 9:43 p.m.

    "Questions about hacking? Nope!"

    Better look again. The Trump Transition Team is starting to move and has now suggested acceptance of a "hacking attempt" which still remains a long way from the concensus among both Republicans and Democrats that hacking by the Russians did occur.

    Give it a week. Then the shift will occur. Donald Trump's ego can't stand the idea that he was helped by the Russians even though he constantly asked that they expose more of the Democratic National Committee's emails at his rallies. This is why so many consider the Trump schizophrenic with regards to his election. He knows, but will not admit that a foreign power actually tried to interfere with our election.

    Other than that, everyone is now waiting to see what the Russians reveal about the Republicans that they are holding if Trump doesn't play ball. The intelligence agencies know the Republicans were also hacked, but it was in their interests that Trump be elected.

    If you think the Russians are the good guys, then consider their activities in the Ukraine and Georgia. They have their interests.

  • prelax Murray, UT
    Jan. 9, 2017 12:30 a.m.

    @at long last

    Good point, it was Snowden that released the NSA documents (Washington Post) showing that Clapper was lying to the American people. Remember Russia gave Snowden temporary asylum. The Democratic administration didn't charge Clapper with perjury. Maybe this is payback? Clapper gets even with Russia for giving asylum, and attempts to disgrace the Republicans, while giving Democrats a bogus excuse for losing?

    Clapper needs to be replaced.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    Jan. 8, 2017 9:43 p.m.

    Questions about hacking? Nope!

    Questions should be on criminal activity such as rigging, and cheating the American election process. This should be the critical issue.

    Shame on our elected officials, and social media, for ignoring this horrific crime against America.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 8, 2017 9:25 p.m.

    I forgot to add that Clapper was under oath at the time and was never even admonished by Obama for his lying, much less being on trial for perjury.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Jan. 8, 2017 8:20 p.m.

    Seeing the picture of Clapper just reminds me of the congressional hearing when he directly lied to Senator Wyden and the American people about agencies spying on the American public. Why would any citizen ever trust his word again about anything?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 8, 2017 7:37 p.m.

    The trump teams' apparent disdain for process and ethics as well as their cavalier approach to the Russian hack attack on our nation are both troubling. We are bound not to be the same nation in four years. And we won't be better.

  • UtahTroutStalker draper, UT
    Jan. 8, 2017 6:55 p.m.

    If people close to Trump can look past their own economic interests and convince him that Putin made him look like a puppet, then he may very well seek to have the last laugh.

    At least one can only hope.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2017 6:11 p.m.

    Yes, the Russian media campaign helped Trump win.

    But the main reason Clinton lost was her inept campaign. She never defined a strategy for industrial revival in the United States. Had she done so she would have been elected. She selected a poor running mate. Had she picked Bernie Sanders as her running mate she would have been elected. And if she hand't been so careless with her e-mail she would have been elected.

    So Hillary Clinton is largely responsible for electing an erratic, childish, fascist-leaning president.

    But now we should be concentrating on our own survival given this man will have the power of life and death for us and our loved ones. Trusting him with the nukes is a fantastic mistake. Can we do anything at all to protect ourselves? That is the question, and that is the question this newspaper should be focused on.