It turns out that the Jonathan Karl/Sean Spicer “Worst Interview of New Year’s Day” previewed the Trump Team’s latest Russian hacking denial/obfuscation/diversion strategy.

On January 1, Karl asked Spicer whether Trump would accept the unanimous U.S. conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russians had hacked the election. Spicer rambled about inadequate DNC cybersecurity and offered this false equivalence relating to one of the Democratic primary debates:

“Why aren’t we talking about Hillary Clinton getting debate questions ahead of time?”

Today, Trump tweeted:

“Somebody hacked the DNC but why did they not have ‘hacking defense’ like the RNC has and why have they not responded to the terrible things they did and said (like giving the questions to the debate to H). A total double standard! Media, as usual, gave them a pass.”

And this:

“Julian Assange said ‘a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta’ – why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!”

And this:

“@FoxNews: Julian Assange on U.S. media coverage: ‘It’s very dishonest.’ #Hannity ‘More dishonest than anyone knows.'”

Perhaps the the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments clause isn’t the only lurking legal problem for Trump:

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States…adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason…” (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2381)

13 thoughts on “TRUMP ALERT

  1. Even if there was hacking, what did it amount to other than exposing to the clear light of day things said by the DNC and the Clinton campaign of which they wanted the voters to remain ignorant lest they make an informed choice? Hell, if the Russians did do it I’d say they did Bernie Sanders’ numerous supporters a favor by driving from office a corrupt DNC Chair who was secretly trying to torpedo their candidate while pretending to be impartial.

    • Would you feel the same way if the RNC alone had been hacked, internal emails dribbled out in the campaign’s final days, and Trump had lost in the electoral college (by fewer that 100,000 votes spread over three states), but won the overall popular vote by 3 million ballots?

      And how would you feel if every U.S. intelligence agency later concluded that the Russians had hacked the election with the INTENT of helping Clinton win?

      Would you accept the results as legitimate?
      Would you accept the winner’s naked statement that all of the U.S. intelligence agencies were wrong?
      Would you worry about emboldening Putin’s already aggressive and destabilizing actions in Europe?
      Would you worry about the next U.S. election?
      Without freedom from foreign adversaries’ interfering in American elections to help select the winner, what does democracy in this country mean?

      • I’d feel the same way because I have no fear of the truth.

        Couldn’t your beloved Hillary and her friends have immunized themselves by not saying the stupid things they said in writing? Did she learn nothing at State?

        Couldn’t they have won those three states by: a. Not boasting about destroying the coal industry which would impress only people who would have voted for them anyway, but easily switched 35,000 votes in PA? b. Not telling the SEIU to keep its resources in Iowa, which was a lost cause, to fake out Trump instead of moving them to Michigan where they could have turned the tide? c. Bothering to show up at one stinking half-day event in Wisconsin just to get on the evening news so the cheeseheads wouldn’t feel taken for granted?

        If the popular vote/electoral college thing is such high-handed outrage why was no serious effort at reform brought forth when the Democrats had the White House and both houses of Congress?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s