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.”
“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!”
“@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)
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?
Interesting, but not responsive to the questions posed.
Ad argumentum, a “progressive” icon.
You’re focused on the last election. The most important questions — and the ones Trump refuses to face — go to the integrity of the next one. That’s why it’s important to consider the extent to which people are willing to sacrifice the sanctity of the democratic voting process to achieve a particular short-term outcome. The more Putin can destabilize democratic elections anywhere — especially in the US — the better he feels.
Anyway, that’s just my opinion.
Am I supposed to worry more about Putin’s attempts to destabilize our democratic voting process than with Republican attempts at gerrymandering and voter suppression? Or the DNC’s manipulation of the primaries? If a foreign entity exposes our corruption, how should we react??
I’ve just started a series for Bill Moyers’ website that may answer some of your questions. Here’s a link to the first installment: http://billmoyers.com/story/dangerous-normalization-donald-trump/
Here’s one thought: Every citizen across the political spectrum should worry about a foreign government interfering to help one side win an American presidential election.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I do not see truth as being any threat to the sanctity of the democratic voting process.
Perhaps I can persuade you to take a look at the series I just started for Bill Moyers’ website. Here’s a link to the first installment: http://billmoyers.com/story/dangerous-normalization-donald-trump/
Here’s another thought:
Every citizen across the political spectrum should worry about the American government interfering to help one side win a foreign presidential election.
…or overthrowing an elected leader after the election.
Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Substitute the word “country” for “man”.
“The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere”
“The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries ”
“Americans can spot election meddling because they’ve been doing it for years ”
The problem is that Trump is an “elected” leader whom Putin helped elect. It’s not a matter of overthrowing him; it’s a matter of neutralizing him and protecting American democracy from whatever his agenda turns out to be. Surely you’re not suggesting that Trump embodies some divine will that the American experiment in self-government should now end.
My statement about “overthrowing” wasn’t directed at Trump, but was a continuation of the first statement about interfering in foreign elections. I was referring to U.S. foreign policy, like Iran in 1950. We talk about democratic ideals, but deny other nations the same right to those ideals because they conflict with our business interests. Not much difference between the U.S. and Trump on that point.
And no, I don’t think the American experiment has to end, but we may need to go through the wilderness for a season to face up to our national hypocrisy because it’s become so thick it’s hard to ignore.