Speaking at his New Years Eve party, President-elect Donald Trump again warned against accepting allegations of Russia having hacked the US election, cautioning that hacking is “very hard to prove” and those who targeted the Democratic Party could be somebody else.
Trump noted it was “a pretty serious charge” and that he wants to make sure the US intelligence community’s conclusions are warranted before acting, adding that he “knows things other people don’t know” about the charges, which is why he is convinced the intelligence community isn’t certain.
Trump promised to elaborate on the details in the future, saying “you’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.” His campaign did not offer any subsequent indication what might ultimately be the sort of revelation that is coming, and Trump went on to generally warn against trusting computers.
Trump went on to insist that “no computer is safe,” and that people who are worried about safety in transferring information should write it down physically and use a courier instead. This followed remarks earlier in the week complaining that computers in general “have complicated lives very greatly.”
What you can be sure of is that The USA is hacking everyone all the time.
You are spot on and this all anyone should view. Aug 4, 2016 DARPA’s Cyber Grand Challenge: Competition Framework Team
Astrophysicist and Cyber Grand Challenge Host Hakeem Oluseyi talks to the CGC’s Competition Framework Team about their role in designing the space in which the CGC is executed and scored. They also discuss the impact the CGC is expected to have, speeding the development of automated cybersecurity.
https://youtu.be/2KVDsiKzOIk
I have no doubt that one foreigner attempted to influence our election. His name is Julian Assange. One question is who gave him the information? The second question is why does the Government of Ecuador allow its London Embassy to house a foreigner who interferes with our elections?
Free speech? Yes, if Assange is in a London hotel. In an embassy? No.
Now I have a question in the interests of clarity. Is it wrong for anyone to try and influence any election or is it just wrong for anyone to try and influence an American election? I think this needs to be identified.
Thanks, Watosh, my thought exactly.
Everyone who speaks does so to influence someone. In a global world, global voices speak to global listeners. No one is restrained by some rule that says “Speak not about matters outside your national boundaries.” That’s utter nonsense.
Plus, the new digital world has introduced some new forms of hypocrisy that shall be aired out: “The American exceptionalist hegemon gets to mess with everyone, but how dare you mess with us!” and “The National Security state spies on everyone. The law doesn’t apply to them. The forth amendment? What forth amendment? Forget about privacy, you have no privacy anymore. We own you! But spy on us, the ruling class,…how dare you?” The response from the newly-hatched digital polity,…: “Goose, gander… the little people can hack, too. Suck on that.”
You too have cleverly moved the discussion out of its location-context which is why I wrote that there would be no diplomatic problem and no problem on my part if Assange had reported from a hotel room in London.
Assange has been mistreated by the governments of Sweden, UK, and ours. The Ecuadorian government is protecting him. He uses that protection to embarrass his protector. Dumb.
It’s your own context that is the problem dieter and the reason why you think you’re not being understood properly. Any criticism of Assange or the Equadorian government is wrongheaded on this site. That’s my opinion but some of the apologists for the US on this site may not agree. That’s fine with me. The US is the problem in all ways, plain and simple and both the D and R party are not mistaking that their agendas are clearly not to support better relations with Russia. Choose your side dieter, you can be with 3/4’s of the American people or antiwar.
luv from Canada.
You have apparently never read my postings here in which I analyzed why Putin had to (legally) bring Crimea back into the Russian Federation after the Kiev putsch and in which I criticized Clinton and Sanders for their destructive Crimea stance.
Repeat: Putin had to act because Russia could not accept that the Black Sea like the Baltic would in essence become a NATO lake. That obvious fact is now strengthened by the Russian-Turkish rapprochement.
If being anti war means that I cannot continue my own analysis of history past and present and point out that every nation, including Russia, with a capitalist economy is potentially non-peaceable then I will stop writing on this site because I shun intellectual inbreeding.
I refuse to accept that the policies and actions of our nation are the only cause of the current troubles in the Middle East. I seem to remember that our President Eisenhower stopped the stupid attack of GB and Israel into Egypt. There exist very few peaceable (distinct from peaceful) nations and the existing ones are tiny.
I hear your plea dieter, and fair enough, I haven’t heard you on Putin’s right to give the Crimea the right to choose Russia. But still dieter, you are wrong on Assange and to not support him in what he has done and is doing is just wrongheaded and counter productive. I don’t know why you are taking that position but I can’t help feeling convinced that it’s because of support of your country and it’s evil doings in the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.
I would just urge you to reconsider your condemnation of Assange and that is because if he has done wrong in any instance then that wrong is erased a thousand fold by all the rights and the good he has done in exposing your country’s evil doing.
You can’t be on both sides dieter, and so you are going to have to choose between support of US evil or being opposed to it. Julian Assange doesn’t make that mistake of being indecisive and neither do I. Do I need to tell you that your country is the bad guys and Russia is the good guys? It’s no more complicated than that and Assange is aware of that too.
luv from Canada.
…and France.
You have cleverly taken my views out of their location-context which is the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Shame on you! I do not answer trick questions.
You are not interested in clarity. You are only interested in your own cleverness.
Russia may have interfered and influenced the US election. The US has interfered and attempted to influence Russia’s elections and much more, hundreds or even thousands of times. There’s the perspective you need to pursue if you indeed aren’t already.
Just make no mistake, the R and D parties as well as the huge majority of Americans just don’t care about that truth.
luv from Canada.
Since when did you become the arbiter of free speech based on location of the speaker? Assange is just a conduit for what was once the domain of an independent and free press – the type that usually is associated with vibrant democracies.
The Ecuadorian government can or cannot forbid Assange to use its Embassy for “free speech”. If that “free speech” demonstrably impinges in any way on our election then I consider the allowance by the Ecuadorian government to be an unfriendly act against our government.
You have completely misinterpreted our constitution which is not the law of the UK anyway. If Assange had been a resident of our embassy in London (under different circumstances of course) I would expect President Obama and after January 20 President Trump to forbid him to intervene in, say, the upcoming German elections. Our constitution does not cover any freedoms inside our embassies other than freedom from arbitrary search and arrest. If there is a sign on the front door “No firearms allowed inside” that would be perfectly legal and not a violation of the 2nd amendment.
You’re just totally out of sync with the interests of this site dieter. People should recognize that and see you for what you are.
Still, fair enough that you represent the feelings of likely 3/4’s of Americans.
luv from Canada.
I have followed AW.com for many years. What you call “the interest of this site” is all over the political map. From ultra-left to ultra-right.
It’s name is anti-war. How have you constructed my comments that I am “pro-war”?
Allow me to clear your addled brain. At the end of WW2 I was a German national living in the Netherlands. I was almost 18 then. Normally the returned Dutch government would have sent me back to defeated Germany but it did not. In fact I was not only allowed to stay but to become a Dutch citizen at age 21. Why? Because in February 1945 I had refused to obey the call to join Hitler’s army.
I would advise you to stop guessing what I represent and what is on my mind because yours will get badly cluttered with misinformation if you persist.
Dieter, Your criticism of Assange is all I need to know about you to dondemn you as not being in sync with this site. Those who run the site may not think that way but I do. Most Americans are very anti-Russia and prowar anyway and you fit that description in my opinion. You may have followed antiwar.com for quite a while but your attitude isn’t constructive here. Perhaps too many people are like you and are wandering about without a real agenda. Here’s one that covers everything pretty well: Anything the US opposes is pretty safe to support. Definitely Assange fits into that category.
luv from Canada.
Who are you to question my question to you? Free speech is not dependent on location, except in dictatorships.
I have no doubt that AIPAC influences every vote in Congress and heavily influenced the presidential election with their influence over the mainstream media. Assange just released information someone else provided (as he has ALWAYS DONE – against republicans and democrats and governments around the world). Sorry, Assange is a world hero for his work against tyranny. He deserves a medal, not condemnation. If America is better informed by his actions than what should have been the actions of a supposedly “free” press in the US, then so be it. If we had had investigative journalists and not ruling elite lackies in the mainstream media, we probably would have had much of this information a lot sooner and Hillary might have lost by an even bigger margin.
In my view Assange is an egomaniac.
That’s just because you’re completely propagandized by the pro-war attitudes you’ve been spoonfed. You and at least 3/4’s of the American people are the problem. You should be quite happy that it’s likely not going to change.
You’re on the winning side perhaps, at least up until you find your sorry ass standing in a glass parking lot.
luv from Canada.
Why was it necessary to insult me? Are you afraid? Of what?
Moreover, I was under the impression that the losing side of Clinton is supposed to harbor the war-hawks. Consistency does not seem to be your forte.
You don’t seem to understand that both the D and R parties are completely and totally opposed to improving relations with Russia. And as well, the American people. Sorry, but that’s the big problem, even if Trump was to attempt what he said he was intending to do on US/Russia foreign policy.
I think that now it’s easy to predict that he won’t even try. If he truly believed in what he was saying then that tells us that he was also completely naive to the facts on the US culture of hate for Russia.
I don’t think the american people realize there’s a good chance they’re being bum rushed into a confrontation with russia for fun and profit; its happened before. I am however pretty damn sure they feel safe in knowing they’re not going to be personally involved in the confrontation, which in many ways contributes to why they’re not particularly concerned about being herded in the direction the wranglers prefer.
In case you’re unaware, that is precisely why the Ecuadorian Embassy cut him off from using the Internet. Which of course does nothing to impede Wikileaks, which is good.
The free flow of information isn’t a crime. And any increase in it is part of globalism and the fact the world has become a smaller place because of technology. What interested party doesn’t try to influence elections? It’s part of life and reality.
December 30, 2016 Obama’s Sanctions against Moscow “Intended to Box In Donald Trump”. Evidence that Hacking of DNC Accusations are Fake
President Obama in the course of his last few weeks in the White House has ordered several retaliatory actions against Russia, on the grounds that Moscow was in involved in the hacking of the Democratic Party National Committee (DNC) with a view to influencing the outcome of the US presidential elections in favor of Donald Trump.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-obamas-sanctions-against-moscow-intended-to-box-in-donald-trump-evidence-that-hacking-of-dnc-accusations-are-fake/5565481
Hey, we killed millions and 50,000 US troops died over the lie of the Tonkin Gulf incident. Hundreds of thousands died and trillions have been wasted over the WMD lies. Americans clearly don’t need evidence, just their blind faith and belief in their worthless government.
Fair enough on Raimondo holding out hope for Trump. He’s been sold. But he should have read this before he wrote today’s.
https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/366442-trump-promises-foreign-policy/
Raimondo doesn’t seem to understand that the culture in the US right now is so anti-Putin/Russia that even if Trump made an attempt at improving foreign relations with Russia, he would be overruled by the huge majority of both the R and D parties together.
That is the reason why I’ve always maintained that Trump won’t even try. He doesn’t exhibit any commitment in my opinion and everything he’s said was only for the sake of being elected. Now we have to wait and see, but at least read the link above because it gives some very good explanations for what has happened and is going to happen on foreign policy between the US and Russia.
I was hoping that some of you regulars would take your best shot at supporting Trump but it’s pretty obvious that none of you can summon up the balls right now. Is Trump going to follow through with his position on Putin/Russia friendly relations with the US? Is he going to offer evidence that it wasn’t Russia? There’s confidence for ya!
luv from Canada.