Trump reveals US cyber-attack on Russian election-misdirection troll farms US president Donald Trump has revealed that in 2018 he authorized an attack on suspected-to-be-state-sponsored Russian internet trolls intent on disrupting the electoral process during Congressional elections. In an interview with The Washington Post Trump claimed credit for a previously-reported but never-before-confirmed …
I don't see anything in there that paints Trump as good or bad. Just digging into the story a little and reporting some possibly unintended side effects (attribution and tradecraft hints). You know. Journalism.
Furthermore, actions like this don't disprove allegations Trump was colluding with the Russians to help him get elected.
Some will argue it provides yet more evidence he's happy to burn anyone who's helped him in the past, if he thinks doing so will boost his own chances. It's not like he hasn't got form for that already - just look at the litanny of past advisors who've taken a metaphorical bullet for him, whom he's then thrown under a bus.
Worse than nothing. It's yet another instance of journalists acting as though something, anything, Trump says has a basis in reality.
Sure, report what he _does_: "Look! He drank water from a cup like a big boy!"
"Oooh! He's pouting, but he wore a mask!"
Stuff he says? Spare me.
Yes, it *has* been a lovely day alone with my computer, hiding from the imaginary virus that makes the Toddler In Chief look like a useless moron.
The Washington Post piece was actually an fawning interview done by opinion columnist and Trump fanboy Marc Thiessen. Thiessen seems to specialize in sucking up to scumbags in positions of power. When he worked for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, he earned the nickname “Torture Boy” for his ardent on-the-record defense of, yes, torture. He also spent time working with convicted felons Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, two of Trump’s connections to Russia. And just for good measure, he also worked for the notorious racist right wing nutjob Senator Jesse Helms. So I would be skeptical of this article.
Whenever I read your (The Register) things about the US Trump Administration it is inevitably from a heavily biased viewpoint that they are all bad to the bone.
I am not that interested in American politics so don't care, but it makes me wonder what else you are putting your own spin on that maybe I didn't notice so much and just accepted as fact.
Did someone make you click on the article?
It is, to be fair, an article about technology. It also doesn't seem particularly biased to me.
But then if I didn't even want to SEE the name Trump, I probably wouldn't click on articles that begin with the name...
Not seeing this heavily biased viewpoint you mention. At least, not in this article. Trump made a statement that seems unusual for him, that statement and potential interpretations and side effects are discussed.
Not saying el Reg is unbiased, or indeed is biased in any particular direction, but I'm not seeing bias in this article.
As to your own historical acceptance, perhaps some general critical thinking is in order, regardless of the outlet. Never assume something is unbiased, even from outlets you might normally trust, especially on potentially contentious and/or controversial issues.
> Whenever I read your (The Register) things about the US Trump Administration it is inevitably from a heavily biased viewpoint that they are all bad to the bone.
Out of interest, has it occurred that maybe it's the administration's own actions that lead to that effect of it all being negative?
There isn't _much_ for them to crow about without relying on nuances of language (well, we built *some* of the wall and never said we'd build all of it).
But, I don't really see how your criticism applies to this article in particular:
- Trump revealed he authorized an attack on the troll farm - factual (I assume)
- He's made statements before that hinted action had been taken
- He's repeatedly said they should try to be friendly to Russia - true
- He's been criticised for that position by those who view Russia as an enemy - true
- Revealing the attack will likely help appease some of those who called him soft on Russia
- Russia now know with certainty it was the US
- Russia can analyse the attack to know how the US conducts attacks (because it now knows the US was behind it)
- It contradicts his previous claims that the win was solely due to him being great
Unless you're opposed to the idea that he's said the US should be more friendly towards Russia, or the idea that a troll farm being active (and sufficiently so to warrant counter-attack), it doesn't seem like there's any overt negativity/bias here
Or more likely *Bolton* authorized it. So all that's happened here, is Trump is taking credit for an attack post John Boltons books to make him look less treasonous, at a time when he's pardoning his Russian conduit team.
Here you can see it comes under Bolton, with Bolton taking the lead:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/midterms-2018-election-russia-hacking-cyber-security-trump-john-bolton-putin-trolls-a8598911.html
Bolton would be able to shed more light on whether Trump ordered it, like he claims here, or whether he was told after the fact.
Yeh, look at this, it looks like he was kept out of the loop when it came to Russia:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/15/trump-nyt-report-cyber-attacks-russia-1365852
"President Donald Trump lashed out at The New York Times on Saturday for a report that the United States has been increasing its cyber-intrusions into Russia,....Citing administration officials, the Times also reported Trump WAS NOT BRIEFED in detail on the program out of fear that he might spill secrets to the Russians"
They didn't trust him, and given his response to the leak, you can understand why:
"Trump flatly rejected the Times' story, calling it "a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.
" .....ALSO, NOT TRUE! Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today. They will do, or say, whatever it takes, with not even the slightest thought of consequence! These are true cowards and without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2019
And what about separating children from their parents at the border, AC? Or in that situation, does the buck stop at the top? Critics can't have it both ways: either "something" is down to the Trump Administration, or it's the fault/credit of some ranker down the chain.
(And yes, we are all aware that children were being separated and caged long before Trump took office, but that doesn't suit the narrative.)
- Trump revealed he authorized an attack on the troll farm - factual (I assume)
Why would you assume that? He lies (on the record) roughly 15 times per day on average since he took office. Why would anyone with 2 neurons to rub together believe he had anything to do with this? More likely he's doing YAN Trump -- taking credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with.
"He's repeatedly said they should try to be friendly to Russia - true
- He's been criticised for that position by those who view Russia as an enemy - true"
Yes, Clinton is very critical of anything that might be seen to endorse or support Putin.
Except the supply uranium, of course.
@Joe Harrison
There is no way to hide incompetence, dishonesty and sheer idiocy in the long run.
In the USA it's about Republicans and Democrats too, but in the big world it's only about a repulsive character who should not be in power in a great country like the USA.
When the head is rotten the body will suffer as they say.
"but in the big world it's only about a repulsive character who should not be in power in a great country like the USA."
True, but the choice was Clinton or Trump. By the time of the last election, only one of these two reptiles had aided in the supply of uranium to the Russians, deleted the contents of a server after a subpoena from the FBI, bombed Libya into the 18th century or stolen furniture from the White House.
There's a saying to the effect of "It is better to keep silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it". Trump has been front and center for years and the toxic combination of 18,000+ lies, ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagrees with him and his over incompetence (as in 'inability to get anything done') makes it difficult for the media to report on him having breakfast --or not -- without it coming over as political.
The takeaway from this appears to be that the US initiated a 'cyber attack' on Russia and it appeared to have no effect whatsoever on its target. Quite apart from initiating any attack -- real or virtual -- on a soverign state being an act of war, something we should never admit to (c/f/ Israel) it appears we're keeping some kind of CyberCommand(TM) in funding that doesn't seem to be able to do squat. My tax dollars at work (not). Its also relevant to the UK merely because the UK fancies itself as the 51st state, its a bit embarassing if the truth be told.
The only thing he is brilliant at is contradicting himself from one day to the next - sometimes not even that long.
He has absolutely no medium or long term thoughts. Not only is he incapable of playing chess, he can't even play checkers. A six-year old could beat him without trouble.
Trump is a reactionary. He only says things in reaction to something. At that point, he will say whatever comes to his warped mind, without any thought to his previous declarations on the subject.
Trump is a waste of air and a waste of time.
At last count, he's posted to Twatter and in speeches he's up to over 15,000 lies. What's truth? What's a lie? Been so much crap coming out of the WH, that it's very hard to tell. I do believe that he fully understands Goebbel's Rule: "“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”,".
As proof, he has an awful lot of people believing him.
I bet you missed this one, Trump was turning up the crazy to distract, this 'US cyber attack' article, was just one of many such articles launched to distract shortly after the leak came out. 4 days ago.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bombshell-report-says-trump-ordered-cia-to-share-counterterrorism-intel-with-russia-despite-no-discernible-reward/ar-BB16vb3m
"Donald Trump directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to provide the Russian government with U.S. intelligence information concerning terrorist groups in the Middle East—whom Vladimir Putin was likely supplying with weapons...“behind the scenes,” former intel officials said the president “directed the CIA to share intelligence information on counter terrorism with the Kremlin despite no discernible reward.”
As Putin was ordering the killing of US troops in Afghanistan by Taliban groups, at the same time, Traitor-Trump was tipping off Putin as to any intel the US had on those Taliban groups.
I wonder how many body bags Trump needed, how many photo-ops of him pretending to look sad next to coffins of US soldiers, to give him an excuse to withdraw from Afghanistan and handing those bases over to Putin?
It would be a round number, 100, maybe 1000 US troops.
See the Russian mercenary attack on a US base in Syria, at the time it looked like the intention was to cause causalities to give Trump an excuse to withdraw troops then. It failed. No casualties. He waited till the impeachment to withdraw troops and hand those bases over to Putin.
Russia is only friendly to "terrorists" when it serves their national interests directly; they almost got their asses handed to them in Chechnya and have endured conflict in other local civil wars inside the Federation up to and including ISIL - so they are not completely in love with all the groups we are against. I see no reason not to share information about groups that are both our enemies - but I'm not in favor of a complete dump of information about the entire area - although they probably know more than we do - so there may even be some value in that as well, as long as they are also forthcoming.
? It was an election promise to get out of Syria. And rather than use emotive language like "hand bases over to Russia" why not use the more accurate "hand over some empty bits of surplus real estate to the Russians".
Are you sure that the Russians are now in bed with the Taliban..?
And how do you feel about Obama's Administration funding groups like ISIS, just to annoy the Russians? How's that littile bit of fun working out for the world?
Er... that was Carter, or rather his NSC under Zbig, with the continued cooperation of unhinged lawmakers from both major parties that made it US policy through subsequent presidential administrations of Rs and Ds. US f*ckery in Afghanistan is only matched by what was done in Latin America over the same period, catalyzing all sorts of repressive, murderous groups in the hopes of keeping the Other Side off balance. You'd think that the ultimate Blowback of 2001 would have cooled that idiocy somewhat, but no, it seems to have only encouraged more: to the point that the US itself might be classified as psychotic, rather than merely sociopathic like its mentor, the UK.
What I look for in a friend is someone who’ll be consistently a) friendly but b) critical when necessary. What I avoid is someone who’ll be an obsequious kiss arse (and good god but Trump must love the flavour of dictatorial ring piece) one moment and then capriciously kick me, or my cause, in the pods the next.
Examples might be the way that he has variously been besties with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un - and yet, at the same time, admitted to a cyber-attack on Russia, initiated sanctions against China, and rattled his saber at North Korea. In the latter case, it hasn’t made a blind bit of difference (other than to make Trump look like even more of an impotent toddler), and in the former two cases he’s left America markedly worse off - and especially in his trade war with China.
I wouldn’t mind as much as I do - except that the Brexiteers have blown a bloody great big hole in the good-ship Blightly, and it’s this doofuses sinking lifeboat, the rusty tub USA, that they want us to scramble into - when we could have been high and dry and enjoying a nice glass of champagne on the sun deck of the good ship EU.
The EU has its own myriad of issues, issues that run deep and long—but no matter one's thoughts or ideals on it, it's essentially unquestionable and indefensible that Brexit was and is a big steaming mess that was doomed from the get-go. Would have been better off without it, and instead putting the EU to task and denying their destructive policy changes. Billions wasted on this trite that could have been used in countless other ways—like maybe improving the shoddy security down at the NHS a bit quicker.
The way I see it, politically, the whole world is outwardly and rightly fucked. No matter what choice you make at this point, it'll be the wrong one. Would the UK be better if it were independent of the EU? Sure, if it were done right, but we all know that's impossible at this point.
Impossible to do right because it's already in the process and things are falling apart. Nothing to do with whether or not the EU is a positive benefit as I implied in the first paragraph, just that the process of leaving has so far been a long, embarrassing situation.
Does anyone remember the communications that were uncovered between the Trump organization and Russia prior to the election? It definitely looked like either Trump had been hacked or Trumps organization was happy chatting with Russia every day. I was following it closely at the time and it definitely looked like there was a hidden communications channel between the Trump organization and Russia, I was thinking at the time that they had just been hacked but when they were asked, they said that they had never been hacked.
His Orangeness was impeached for bringing influence to bear on Ukraine in 2018 to make it appear as if Joe Biden was linked to allegedly corrupt activities.
Allegations of back channel communications between Russia and Trump Tower during the 2016 election campaign have never been tested in court. This might have something to do with the effects investigating those events might have on the employment prospects of certain DoJ officials.
Whether soliciting foreign aid to influence the result of a democratic process in one's own country is treason is therefore left as an exercise for the voter.
It was done without his knowledge, he found out and groveled to Putin in apology, and now publicly claims credit for it to try deflect from the much bigger story of why he has done nothing about the Russian "bounties" on US service members paid to the Taliban. His administration is stonewalling congress from getting details about that, which isn't what you'd do if the intelligence was wrong like he claims.
He's owned by Putin and can't get the stink of Putin's ass off his lips no matter how hard he tries.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
