The Don

Trump's refusal to accept intelligence briefing on Russia stuns experts

Dana Priest, Tom Hamburger
The Washington Post

Former senior U.S. national security officials are dismayed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's repeated refusal to accept the judgment of intelligence professionals that Russia stole files from the Democratic National Committee computers in an effort to influence the U.S. election.

The former officials, who have served presidents in both parties, say they were bewildered when Trump cast doubt on Russia's role after receiving a classified briefing on the subject and again after an unusually blunt statement from U.S. agencies saying they were "confident" that Moscow had orchestrated the attacks.

"It defies logic," retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, said of Trump's pronouncements.

Trump has assured supporters that, if elected, he would surround himself with experts on defense and foreign affairs, where he has little experience. But when it comes to Russia, he has made it clear that he is not listening to intelligence officials, the former officials said.

"He seems to ignore their advice," Hayden said. "Why would you assume this would change when he is in office?"

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Top Hillary Clinton aide links Trump campaign to Russian email hacking
Several former intelligence officials interviewed this week believe that Trump is either willfully disputing intelligence assessments, has a blind spot on Russia, or perhaps doesn't understand the nonpartisan traditions and approach of intelligence professionals.

In the first debate, after intelligence and congressional officials were quoted saying that Russia almost certainly broke into the DNC computers, Trump said: "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"

During the second presidential debate, Trump ignored what a U.S. government official said the candidate learned in a private intelligence briefing: that government officials were certain Russia hacked the DNC. That conclusion was followed by a public and unequivocal announcement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security that Russia was to blame.

"Maybe there is no hacking," Trump said during that debate.

"I don't recall a previous candidate saying they didn't believe" the information from an intelligence briefing, said John Rizzo, a former CIA lawyer who served under seven presidents and became the agency's acting general counsel. "These are career people. They aren't administration officials. What does that do to their morale and credibility?"

Former acting CIA director John MacLaughlin said all previous candidates took the briefings to heart.

Trump dismisses Pence's hawk talk on Russian-backed Syria
"In my experience, candidates have taken into the account the information they have received and modulated their comments," he said. Trump, on the other hand, "is playing politics. He's trying to diminish the impression people have that [a Russian hack of the DNC] somehow helps his cause."

On Thursday, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said information she received has led her to conclude that Russia is attempting "to fix this election." She called on Trump and elected officials from both parties "to vocally and forcefully reject these efforts."

Trump has consistently adopted positions likely to find favor with the Kremlin. He has, for instance, criticized NATO allies for not paying their fair share and defended Russian President Vladimir Putin's human rights record.

"It's remarkable that he's refused to say an unkind syllable about Vladimir Putin," Hayden said. "He contorts himself not to criticize Putin."

Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, said in the vice-presidential debate last week that the United States should "use military force" against the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Trump disagreed. Rather than challenge Assad and his Russian ally, Trump said in the second debate, the United States should be working with them against the Islamic State. "Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS," he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State. Russia and Syria have mostly been targeting opposition groups as well as civilians trapped in Aleppo - not the Islamic State.

"That's the Syrian, Russia, Iranian narrative," Hayden said of Trump's assertions.

The Washington Post's Greg Miller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2016, Chicago Tribune
 
LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP 12h
12 hours ago

If black people won't vote for a birther who wouldn't rent to him, obviously the system is rigged. What possible other explanation is there?
 
And Trump pivots to the 'clean up washington' agenda pledging to push for legislation that bans exec. branch from ever lobbying for foreign governments. Will be interesting to see how Clinton responds to this inevitable question at the debate, seeing as that's exactly what Bill Clinton has been doing for the past decade or so.
 
Clarence Thomas' wife has been a registered lobbyist for a right wing think tank most if not all of Clarence Thomas tenure on the bench.

what is your point ?
 
I think we should all support curtailing lobbying from the DC crew as much as possible, irrespective of party. Don't you?

My point is that Trump is going to use it as an attack point on Wednesday in light of the CGI related leaks.
 
Of course.

But this is another form of speech.
Lobbying by its intent is people advocating for other people.
Not sure how beyond registering how we'd reach that goal

Living in a state capital I know many lobbyists that are wonderful people.
I am sure Justice Thomas' wife (though mistaken in her politics) is a fine honest person.
As partisan as things are if the opposite were true we would have definitely heard

but then there are, like in any other walk of life, paper hangers
 
I see your point, and I agree that lobbying as a whole shouldn't be targeted.

Trump's plan is interesting and actually speaks directly to your comments about registration and improving the system as a whole; he proposes a 5 year ban on lawmakers and their staff, stricter regulations on how lobbyists portray themselves (ie. not 'consultants'), and a few other points that are definitely aimed at HRC.

It's totally anti-establishment and I can't see any other 'Republican' being able to pull it off without ruffling a ton of feathers.

Now, in the interest of fair and equal debate, what is Hillary's position on this? I'm genuinely curious. I looked on her site and couldn't find any mention of it although I know she has to have a position on it somewhere.
 
I see your point, and I agree that lobbying as a whole shouldn't be targeted.

Trump's plan is interesting and actually speaks directly to your comments about registration and improving the system as a whole; he proposes a 5 year ban on lawmakers and their staff, stricter regulations on how lobbyists portray themselves (ie. not 'consultants'), and a few other points that are definitely aimed at HRC.

It's totally anti-establishment and I can't see any other 'Republican' being able to pull it off without ruffling a ton of feathers.

Now, in the interest of fair and equal debate, what is Hillary's position on this? I'm genuinely curious. I looked on her site and couldn't find any mention of it although I know she has to have a position on it somewhere.

Why don't you think lobbying as a whole shouldn't be targeted?

I feel like lobbying was set up for the standard man to write his congressman and tell them where help was needed at. I don't think it was set in place to allow what's going on right now, which is outright bribery dictating all our laws to help large corporations become even larger.
 
Why don't you think lobbying as a whole shouldn't be targeted?

I feel like lobbying was set up for the standard man to write his congressman and tell them where help was needed at. I don't think it was set in place to allow what's going on right now, which is outright bribery dictating all our laws to help large corporations become even larger.

I didn't phrase that so well. I do think lobbying should be targeted, but I don't think it is inherently flawed. Like you said, it's important to have a conduit between the people (especially the marginalized who deserve a larger voice) and their government. Where it gets really iffy is the financial aspect of it all, the corporatist influencing, and how in that way lobbying has been used to wield influence instead of promoting a position.

Would be curious to get 50's input here, as I seem to recall him mentioning in the past that he worked in this realm at one time.
 
"Trump continued: 'In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.'
The real-estate mogul concluded his op-ed writing that the future of the US and Europe 'depends on a cohesive global economy.'"

Obviously he didn't write this op-ed on his own, but he did put his name on it. Not only does he know very little, he doesn't seem to believe the things he says. He gets his talking points from right-wing blowhards and panders to the low-education voter. and they actually believe in him. fascinating.
 
I think we should all support curtailing lobbying from the DC crew as much as possible, irrespective of party. Don't you?

My point is that Trump is going to use it as an attack point on Wednesday in light of the CGI related leaks.

I'm on board.
 
"Trump continued: 'In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.'
The real-estate mogul concluded his op-ed writing that the future of the US and Europe 'depends on a cohesive global economy.'"

Obviously he didn't write this op-ed on his own, but he did put his name on it. Not only does he know very little, he doesn't seem to believe the things he says. He gets his talking points from right-wing blowhards and panders to the low-education voter. and they actually believe in him. fascinating.

I don't really see how this conflicts with Trump's economic plan.

You are right, he's droned on and on about China and Mexico and blamed them for basically every economic woe imaginable - but he's never said he was anti-trade.

I guess we can cling to the 'leave borders behind' comment in the context of the rhetoric that he's used but this is all wordplay no matter which angle you try and spin it from.
 
I don't really see how this conflicts with Trump's economic plan.

You are right, he's droned on and on about China and Mexico and blamed them for basically every economic woe imaginable - but he's never said he was anti-trade.

I guess we can cling to the 'leave borders behind' comment in the context of the rhetoric that he's used but this is all wordplay no matter which angle you try and spin it from.

Oooh, bad (and dangerous) choice of words there man!!
 
Look at that body language. Tiffany is the only one smiling. LOL

GettyImages-615791582.jpg
 
If Trump loses by more than a percentage point or two, who cares whether he accepts the defeat or not? No one expects him to be gracious and the show will go on. Any of his supporters dumb enough to cause trouble will most likely get exactly what they deserve.
 
If Trump loses by more than a percentage point or two, who cares whether he accepts the defeat or not? No one expects him to be gracious and the show will go on. Any of his supporters dumb enough to cause trouble will most likely get exactly what they deserve.

He will piss and moan as always but you're right, it really won't matter. Most republicans just want this to be over and are waiting to move on from the joke that is donald trump. only his low-education supporters will whine about it.
 
Back
Top