Obama's intel chief says Russia totally tried to swing it for Trump James Clapper, US Director of National Intelligence under president Barack Obama, has used a speech in Australia to unload on US president Donald Trump and on Russia. On the former, Clapper told Australia's National Press Club in Canberra that Trump's “internal assault” on America's institutions is driven by “paranoia and …
The relevance is that this is a man who lied under oath to a Senate Committee, denying that the NSA collected data on Americans, other than some picked up "unwittingly".
This was the final straw for Snowden - the moment when he decided to blow the whistle.
Clapper is a proven purveyor of an immense lie, and so it is impossible to assign any credibility to anything that he says, even if it supports one's own views or if one wishes it were true.
Regardless of any acknowledgement or apology, the man should have no further place in public life. And should think himself lucky that he wasn't charged with perjury.
Everything he's quoted as saying here can be independently verified, so it is perfectly possible to give it credibility.
Well I hate to sound like a Trumpeter - because, believe me, I am NOT - but if that's the case then let's see the independent verification.
And I then return to my second point - he has been such an asshole that he should be vilified, shunned, and should not have any further place in public life.
He also states that Russia has a long history of trying to influence elections including the US going back to the '60s. I guess he feels this time it's somehow special unprecedented. My money is that it's because they were always better at it than we were since we usually had to help the correct people get power in the following coup d'état but we did manage to steal a few elections here and there.
I think the world is making a silly mistake assuming voters can be so easily swayed in US elections. The public has lost too much confidence in not only their government but even more in the media - they have no confidence the truth is told at all.
If you have people who are already mad about one side or the other, they are ready to make assumptions about each side of the political spectrum - what they suspect is even worse than the fake news! I can say with confidence that the interference had minimal change in the result of the election, and if anything it may have back fired very badly for either side of the fence.
For those that actually bothered to vote. the outcome was literally up for grabs - and a coin toss could change everything. Many of the silent majority stayed home in disgust - but some of them had finally had enough and decided to throw a bomb into Washington no matter the consequences - Trump was that bomb - and now it is DAMN THE TORPEDOES FULL SPEED AHEAD!!
..but after 7 months and testimony in congress, by what must be half the security bods in the US Govt, that they don't have any actual evidence of collusion, I think it might be time to drop the excuses and admit: whatever you think of Trump, the US public were less keen on what the Democrat's were offering.
I guess you would have let Nixon off too, because it took a lot longer than 7 months to build the case against him. Seems more likely you are just getting worried about the case being built and what it will mean for president cheeto.
But yes, Clinton ran a bad campaign that amounted to pointing at Trump and saying "Really? REALLY?? This guy??? You gotta be joking!!!!"
Yes, it did indeed take longer to build a case against Nixon and I am always keen to see corruption in government brought out into the open and prosecuted (like it should have been under Obama).
However, in the Watergate case, there was an actual criminal event that took place to spark an investigation. Petulant foot-stamping and finger pointing by the losing party - simply because they felt entitled to a win - is not a substitute for evidence.
This post has been deleted by its author
I would like to add another thought here - the US badgered the Russians during the entire cold war, with Radio Free Europe transmissions, and all kinds of dirty tricks to foul up Soviet progress at every step. The US interfered with other nations using NO rules of fair engagement to attempt to blast Soviet influence at all cost. And now we complain about innocuous interference in elections? Geeze! The US did lot worse over the cold war against the Russians; and they didn't care who's toes, or small country they had to step on!
And as far as hacking the DNC and their politicos - the fact is the information was the truth wasn't it? Probably the only time in recent history, that Americans found out the straight facts!!
I agree with @smudge earlier, no matter my own views, this guy is about as trustworthy as the English Nigel Farage, who is also linked to the Russians?..
Obviously my own views are anti-trump and anti-brexit, so I am biased, but it seems like the Russians did a good job here, they have managed (or helped) to get a dangerous idiot into the White House who is hell bent on destroying American power across the globe and they have helped get the UK out of the EU weakening that body and strengthening Russia in the process.
Golf Claps all round I think
A timely reminder on The Clapper's statement regarding the independenc of the FBI:
Russia-gate’s Mythical ‘Heroes’
The FBI is a political machine of the state (whether deep or shallow), always has been.
I'm at present reading 'The Mitrokhin Archive' by UK academic Christopher Andrew. It's a fascinating and hugely detailed account of Russian (KGB etc.) activities throughout the 20th Cent to spy and influence politics in many western countries on an industrial scale. What is alleged to have happened in the recent US election appears very familiar given this history.
Possibly. But it is also seriously possible that the democrats and mainstream republicans just didnt appeal. The problem is Trump is accused of anything and everything with a negative spin put on everything to the point that people seem to be numb to it. Constantly crying wolf over nothings doesnt help any case against him. Whatever the facts some people will still believe it was the Russians because the alternative seems to unthinkable to them.
I dont understand why Trump gets attacked so much over nothings. This guy does plenty that can be legitimately opposed yet people still mock him for the colour of his skin and his hair.
I dont understand why Trump gets attacked so much over nothings.
The "joy" of Identity Politics: It no longer matters what one does - It only matters what one is (with some boundaries mostly determined by ones relative position on the victimhood scale)! Since actions can be measured and changed "what is" cannot, so the very same crap can keep being spun around the drain endlessly with almost zero intellectual effort.
PS:
I don't think Donald Trump and his handlers are unhappy with this, because while the internet social justice warriors rant and rave over every Triggering Twit The Donald commissions, the real actions of Donald Trump conveniently disappears completely in the noise.
The problem with Trump is that appearances actually do matter in politics. As do stupid words.
Admittedly the orange with weird hair thing would matter much less if he wasn't a total arsehole. Though would still be used by opponents, because people are just like that.
This is a reality that he seems to stupid to realise. He thinks that he can just tweet bollocks to his heart's content, and this won't have any effect on actual policy and diplomacy. I guess because he thinks it's just business, which is all about the money. But of course now he's playing in politics, which isn't all about the right decision, it's also about appearances, perceptions etc.
Also business isn't all about the money anyway. As anyone who's ever negotiated can tell you. You can get a bit more by being difficult sometimes, but that tactic can equally blow up in your face and get you less than just asking politely.
There's an argument that it's all just noise, and the little stuff obscures the big stuff. Plus the crying wolf argument. That's the game Putin plays relatively successfully. But on the other hand, there's so little evidence for these Russian links allegations that if Trump wasn't such a monumental arse, it might have died down by now. Obviously there was hacking and fake news, but I suspect very little in the way of direct, provable links to Trump's team. I'm sure Clinton's team will have had meetings with the Russian ambassador too, it's actually part of an ambassador's job to meet the teams of all the likely candidates before an election.
Also trust matters. Putin is in strife in international relations because he thinks he can make a deal, then break it, then laugh in people's faces when he admits lying to them. Because they eventually will have to deal with him. But that game has a very limited lifespan, and that's why Russia is still under very painful and expensive sanctions 2 years after they invaded Crimea, even though there's clearly a deal to be done because they've got stuff we want from them.
Power is important in politics. So is trust. And so are appearances.
@codejunky wrote: Constantly crying wolf over nothings doesn't help any case against him.
There was an excellent article written by, I think it was in Vanity Fair (a pub very sympathetic to liberals) that stated the DNC has 'cried wolf' so many times that people ignore it. It was very well researched.
The DNC and Hillary (I put them separate since she is attacking the DNC now) do not understand why the Access Hollywood tape, and the accusations of harassment against Trump, had a such a very minimal affect on Trump's poll numbers during the election. That she & the DNC don't get it.
What the Vanity Fair article stated is that today people accept that elections are lying contests. But they want their elected representatives tell the truth while in office.
But TRUMP WUN THE ELECTIIN in the US. RUSHA wasn't wallowed to vote Because they were NOT US CITIZENS. OBAMA is just Sorry that CLIMTON DIDND WIN BECAUSE SHE ISNHATED BY everyone. Except WALL street or WHOOOOOR street as I call em. TRUMP won on HIS POLICIES his MERITS his Tweetez his ALL AMERICAN HAIR AND because I THINK OF LADY MELLOTRON nakid {{me not HER)). Holding my GUN in MYNHAND.
RUB him OFF TOO much and TRUMP will EXPLODE all over YOU.
I should HAVE A COLUM In this weBSITE, THERES too MUCH COMPUTAH talk and NOT ENOUGH SERIOUS pelotical DEBATE. I can fox that. NOW!!!!!!!!!!! I would WRTE IT for BEEEER. and a burger.
About the guy's credibility, and the other reg article https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/07/nsa_leaker_bust_gets_weirder_senator_claims_hacking_is_wider_than_leak_revealed/ this is all to overload you with information so you don't know what is true and what isn't. I suppose back in th'day they can just conceal such stuff because there wasn't an Internet, now they've just adapted to leverage it to achieve the same secrecy through mass confusion so that "people" stop caring or get entrenched in their own echo chambers.
I am no fan of Clinton, but I thought healthcare and education and child support and all those things helped the white working class as much as the non-white? I see horrified dismay from white working class Trump voters who see their pre-existing conditions about to be taken off health cover. I saw their mortgages going up immediately after Trump came in, due to his signing an EO. What white working class votes were doing was to approve of someone who said he'd bring jobs back (any real ones yet that don't pre-date him?) and step on brown people. 'Working class' is where I come from and what I support. 'White working class' doesn't interest me so much.
You cannot, for years, silently benefit from a system that allows the purchasing of power for money and then start throwing your toys out of the pram when the next investor takes over because you don't like the colour of their money.
Don't get me wrong, I think trump is a dangerous tool, but let's have a conversation about the game and not the player.
Okay, America (via the CIA) have sort to influence voting in other countries. Russia (via the KGB of old) has done the same. This is politics in action.
Most countries do this: They try and encourage a favourable outcome in an election in another country. There are lots of reasons to do this, from destablinising or winning favour, to gaining an element of control by having a sympathetic person run said country.
This is normal, so claims that the Russia sort to get Trump elected could well be true - he might well have been the more favourable candidate in Russia's eyes. Equally, any previous POTUS could have had help from the USSR, be it asked for or not. The reciprical is less likely, of cause, but look to non-communist countries and you'll see both US and USSR influences in elections, amongst others.
So... situation normal, really.
But Russia suddenly got smart
Instead of funding dozens of marxist-ish groups who spend all their time bickering with each other and have bugger-all chance of getting elected, you 'support' far right groups in the hope of breaking up the country.
Like the time honoured British solution of splitting former colonies in two so they immediately go to war with each other and aren't any bother to you.
Living in Central PA, you don't usually see a whole lot of political action. Most of the people here are passive observers, with many not bothering to vote - or vote Democratic due to union demands.
Not this time.
This was a highly unusual situation - PA went Red for the first time in a LONG time (Reagan era), and the Dems still don't understand why.
I could have predicted the outcome here in the previous August. For miles, all you saw were Trump signs, people painting the name on the sides of large buildings, bumper stickers, the works.
I had Democrat friends who, for the first time ever, voted Republican. After eight stagnant years of Mr. Obama, that old maxim came back into play: It's about the economy, stupid. And really, that's all it was. People around here didn't particularly enjoy Mr. Trump's antics, other than watching him poke a finger in the eye of just about every political leader. However, they wanted to send a message to BOTH parties: Stop listening to the money in D.C. and listen to US!
It appears, unfortunately, that the Beltway still doesn't get it, or they simply want to deflect to things like this ridiculous (still no actual proof of anything), Russia 'link'. Meanwhile the Dems elsewhere continue to lose mid-year elections - no matter how much money they throw at the 'problem'.
So when you read mainstream media reports, keep in mind that the 'wizards of Smart', never bothered to get off the f*cking plane here in PA or in other 'flyover country' areas. We were effectively ignored. They had NO CLUE that the election would turn out like this. Only (of all people on the Left), Michael Moore correctly called it... Because he was on the ground and saw what was happening.
There was no conspiracy (at least not an active one). There was no collusion. There was no plot (other than the DNC ensuring that Bernie Sanders not be allowed to win). Always take what the mainstream says with a rather large grain of salt...
Thanks for this. Nobody is talking about the greying out of the economic futures of the middle, lower-middle and working classes. 2008 saw the beginning of a long world-wide depression that hits everyone but the hugely rich and the hugely powerful. The Panama Papers gave us a glimpse of a world where we, the peons, struggle under a load towards nothing while the rich and powerful benefit. I am not going on a Marxist rant; it is hard to argue that this is not the world today. Our opiate is now both religion and consumer culture. Both are used to manipulate us not to resist our dominators.
Thank you sir for cutting through the haze of people's vehement views that seem to cloud even the debate here. Why does everyone think there is a need for these conspiracy theories of Russian hackers. Hillary to this day can't, wont except blame for losing the election. She has blamed russian hackers, others in the democrat party, Comey, Benghazi, the media, Bernie Sanders, the list goes on.
The American population looked at her and trump and they thought "Fuck it, Trump is the lesser of the two evils". Now would you want to admit to that.
This post has been deleted by its author
I actually approved of that sale - because we were looking at an uncontrolled former Soviet nuclear warhead stockpile with woefully inadequate guarding - so trading old nukes for uranium for maintaining their new weapons instead, was actually a brilliant move in my best estimation - it was one of the things that surprised me about that administration, and the guts it took to do it. There is still missing weapons that haven't been accounted for to this day - but it was too late for them. Keeping the damage to a minimum was all we could hope for.
Seriously. "Those evil Rooskies skewed our elections!" What the hell? Multiple parties and entities within the US have been trying every way they could think of for decades to sway and skew elections. Are they really suggesting that the Russians are better able to influence a US election than the home-grown crop of meddlers? Bullshit, bullshit, and steaming shite of a bull. US politics is like herding cats for Americans. It's ridiculous to insist that Putin and friends can do it better.
And as the subject hinted, I would be ashamed to admit that the Russians managed to influence an election more than my domestic campaign. Either way, the Dems blew it. (and I supported neither unsuitable candidate)
>Multiple parties and entities within the US have been trying every way they could think of for decades to sway and skew elections.
Often successfully. But their actions have opened up avenues of approach and habits of acceptance which have made it much easier for a combination of foreign interference and the usual corrupt oligarchs to make the USA's democracy something of a global laughing stock.
Hillary:
1. Has been under Republican attack for 20 years. They hate her, even more than they hate Bill. The Lewinski affair only emerged because Starr was trying to skewer her for Whitewater (and failed)
2. Yet she won the majority of votes (by some margin).
Meanwhile, Trump has been in power for nearly six months, with a compliant House & Congress, and has achieved the square root of fuck all.
@ atrum - #2 it depends on how you view the majority - In a Democratic Republic all people count.
https://scatter.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/sunday-morning-sociology-first-edition/
This was published in The Washington Post - so I doubt any argument of FAKE news can be attributed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
