@nichiro-sanThanks 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.
Sportsfan123 - Salt lake, UTJan. 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.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 9, 2017 12:05 p.m.As a partisan Donald
Trump apologist, your objections are noted.Sportsfan123 - Salt lake,
UTJan. 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.
prelax - Murray, UTJan. 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.
at long last. . . - Kirksville , MOJan. 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.
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 – disasterNot a geopolitical threat –
disaster“After my election I have more flexibility."
-disasterCrimea – disasterRussians in Syria – disaster
@ at long lastI 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.
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.
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.
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
@ 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.
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.
Clapper - - National Intel Director – Appointed by Obama 8/2010Comey - FBI - Appointed by Obama 9/2013Brennan - CIA –
Appointed by Obama 3/2013Only a fool would believe this isn't
just a political stunt by the democrats to discredit Trump.
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.
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.
The whole country should hope Comrade Trump is successful the next four years.
@ 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?
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.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 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.
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.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 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.
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.
worf - McAllen, TXJan. 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.
@at long lastGood 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.