Trump changes hacking position again

Donald Trump has expressed changing views about Russian hacking interference in last year’s US elections.

  • Prior to his presidential run, Donald Trump made statements to Fox News in 2014 in which he agreed with an assessment by FBI director James Comey about hacking against the U.S. by Russia and China.
  • In September 2016, during the first presidential debate, Trump said he doubted whether anyone knew who hacked the DNC, and disputed Russian interference.
  • During the second debate, Trump said there might not have been hacking at all, and questioned why accountability was placed on Russia.
  • After the election, Trump rejected the CIA analysis and asserted that the reports were politically motivated to deflect from the Democrats’ electoral defeat. Responding to The Washington Post, Trump dismissed reports of Russia’s interference, calling them “ridiculous”; he placed blame on Democrats upset over election results for publicizing these reports.
  • On January 6, 2017, after meeting with members of U.S. intelligence agencies, Trump released a statement saying: cyberwarfare had no impact on the election and did not harm voting machines.
  • Two days later, Reince Priebus reported that Trump had begun to acknowledge that “entities in Russia” were involved in the DNC leaks.
  • On January 11, 2017, Trump conceded that Russia was probably the source of the leaks, although he also said it could have been another country.

Trump’s changing views may have been due to changing information that he was aware of, but US intelligence agencies had made it clear they though Russian hackers had tried to interfere with the election

The CIA assessment, and Trump’s dismissal of it, created an unprecedented rupture between the president-elect and the intelligence community. On December 11, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials responded to Trump’s denunciation of its findings in a written statement, and expressed dismay Trump disputed their conclusions as politically motivated or inaccurate

Last month Trump seemed to accept that Russian hacking had occurred when he blasted Barack Obama for not doing anything about it.

The Independent: Donald Trump says Barack Obama ‘colluded’ by not pursuing Russia’s election hacking

In a morning tweetstorm, Mr Trump asserted that “The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win…and did not want to ‘rock the boat.’ He didn’t ‘choke,’ he colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and Crooked Hillary no good.”

It is unclear who Mr Trump is claiming Mr Obama colluded with or what he obstructed.

Last week in Poland Trump’s story had changed. The Hill:

President Trump in Poland last week said that he thinks Russia and “people in other countries” likely attempted to meddle in the 2016 presidential race, but “nobody really knows.”

Except apparently the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and those who take any notice of them.

“I think it was Russia and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” Trump said during a joint press conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

Then Trump met Putin in Hamburg:  I ‘strongly pressed’ Putin on election meddling

President Trump early Sunday said he “strongly pressed” Russian President Vladimir Putin during the G-20 summit on Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

“I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it. I’ve already given my opinion…..” the president tweeted.

“…We negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria which will save lives. Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!” he added.

Trump did not say whether he accepted Putin’s denial, however.

Putin earlier in the day said at a press conference that he believes Trump is convinced by his denial that his state interfered.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said at a press conference that Trump accepted the denial.

Trump has expressed different opinions on the hacking over time, and now appears to have different stories for different audiences.

Is “working constructively with Russia” more important than dealing with interference in the US democratic process?

 

18 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  July 10, 2017

    Early signs of dementia,cannot remember previous positions what will he tweet really early tomorrow morning.

    • Trumpenreich

       /  July 10, 2017

      “what will he tweet really early tomorrow morning.”

      Another brilliant and humorous take down of #FAKE NEWS Globalists.

      His Twitter trolling is masterful.

      MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  July 10, 2017

        For once you may be on the money – trump is an artful troll who spews out bile 140 characters at a time. And if trolling were the only measure of Presidential capacity then trump would be a great leader. But all he shows in his tweets is a fundamental inability to focus on realpolitik.

        There’s no place in trumpworld for valuing the meaning of words – what he says today is discarded/contradicted tomorrow in his craving for attention – and his trickle-down ignorance has infected the plague of locusts who consume his every bilious word.

        MORONS ARE GOVERNING AMERICA.

      • lurcher1948

         /  July 10, 2017

        MAKING AMERICA STUPID AGAIN one tweet at a time

  2. MaureenW

     /  July 10, 2017

    There a a number of scenarios that have been linked to potential foreign interference. Voter Machines, the hack or leak from the DNC Servers, the hack/leak of Podesta’s emails and hacking of Clintons unencrypted private Servers while she was Secretary of State, and the emails that were forwarded to Weiner.

    As yet, no evidence has been produced to conclusively prove who was responsible for any of the scenarios.

    Trumps changing positions need to be aligned to whichever scenario is being discussed, unless you accept the blanket “Russia did it” view.

    Which hack / leak are you referring to, and if the DNC incident was so damaging, why did they refuse permission for their servers to be examined by the FBI?

  3. Trumpenreich

     /  July 10, 2017

    There is zero evidence for the “Russians did it” narrative peddled by Globalists.

    Dems built up the expectations of their terrified voter base by promising them Trump would not even see out his first year in office.

    Now the reality is sinking in that Trump is going to be around for at least 4 years.

    It was hilarious to then see hysterical Dem politicians pushing for impeachment on the grounds of the POTUS tweets.

    • Mefrostate

       /  July 10, 2017

      “There is zero evidence”. True, if you ignore the conclusions of the entire American intelligence community, along with several private firms, and the stated opinion of Trump himself (only at times when he finds it politically convenient, of course).

      • MaureenW

         /  July 10, 2017

        I believe the number was four, with each have different levels of confidence as I recall.
        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-forced-retract-longstanding-17-intel-agencies-lie-about-russian-hacki

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  July 10, 2017

        Please allow me one small correction – it was originally stated that all 17 US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia hacked the elections.

        That’s since been disbunked.

        Only 4 agencies reached that conclusion…because only 4 agencies were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations).

        Why only 4? Because the intelligence arms of agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Coast Guard wouldn’t be expected to collect intelligence related to Russian interference in an election.

        In this context, the assessments that count are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI and they unanimously expressed “high confidence” in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.

        As for the “zero evidence” claim of trumpenreich’s, until the public have the same security clearance as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and access to their intel, then you won’t see the evidence – ‘zero evidence’ is a fool’s claim. The only valid claim trumpenreich can make is that no evidence has been publicly revealed yet. Until then a claim that there’s “zero evidence” is misleading and deceitful.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  July 10, 2017

          And do you see how bald statements like Maureen’s can be as misleading as claims that there’s ‘zero evidence’?

          It’s valid to criticise the media for not being specific enough in their reports.

          But that doesn’t invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their “high confidence” in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.

          • Mefrostate

             /  July 10, 2017

            Nicely done JB, far better than my sweeping statement. Perhaps “entire” should be replaced with “relevant” in my original comment.

          • MaureenW

             /  July 10, 2017

            I did not make a bald statement about zero evidence JB. The repeating of bald evidence has been made by the likes of Podesta and Clinton with the “all 17 agencies” bull, even as recently as last week, Podesta was still making this claim. I guess 17 agencies sounds better than 4?

            I would concede that no evidence has been made public.

            • Mefrostate

               /  July 10, 2017

              Claiming 17 is incorrect. Claiming 4 is accurate. Framing it as “only three or four” as if this is a low proportion of the IC is misleading. Framing it as “different levels of confidence” is misleading. Claiming it as “zero evidence” is misleading. Framing is as “no public evidence” is misleading.

              Despite folks trying to malign the NY Times (e.g. “forced to retract”) you’ll find them with a summary of the situation which is both technically correct and fairly framed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/us/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-agencies-cia-fbi-nsa.html

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  July 10, 2017

              +100 Mefrostate – lol

              these rat-cunning assaults on the media are typical of the bully’s propensity to pick on less popular targets than themselves. And if your targets are susceptible to moral reproach then that makes the bully’s work so much easier.

              trump’s notion of the truth is a collection of wants and wishes and whatever he can get away with at the time, whereas the media for all their faults still operates to the epistemology that truth is a construct of facts.

              Of course the media can never pass an infallability test and anyone who suggests they should is setting the media up to become targets of criticism.

              But what do you do with people who are more influenced by some Reddit user called HanAssholeSolo than they are by journalists at the New York Times…