Not a lot in the Donald's Twitter account since last time. A couple of Victory Tour posts about Pennsylvania and Mobile, and then …
► Are we talking about the same cyberattack where it was revealed that head of the DNC illegally gave Hillary the questions to the debate?
Just a random thought bubbling to the surface. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Again, when denial doesn't work (or even if it does), Trump always pivots to an attack, to deflecting the matter toward another target, hopefully by changing the subject. Insult his restaurant? He doesn't reply to the criticisms, he notes the magazine they appeared in is failing. That sort of thing.
I mean, think about it. What would the normal Presidential response be to "US intelligence services all agree that Russia was behind hacking attempting to influence the election, and CIA analysis indicates it was an attempt to get X into the White House"? What would Obama, or B Clinton, or either Bush, or Reagan, have said if these sorts of charges were leveled about how they got into the White House?
I would imagine something like:
"I am deeply concerned over the charges that Russia was attempting to influence our election through unlawful cyberattacks on our nation. While I am fully confident that the American People have spoken in electing me to the Presidency, I fully support efforts by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate this matter thoroughly, as a question of national security, and I will take all measures necessary over the coming months to ensure that this nation is protected from such attacks."
Yeah, that sounds normal, even laudable. It doesn't admit to what happened, but it shows a desire to protect the nation and determine the truth. It's political, but it's also the right answer.
Versus:
"Nuh-uh! Didn't happen! Obvious fake news. And if it did, it made the Democrats look like poopyheads!"
Very presidential.
For the record, yes, info from the hacked emails Russia provided to WikiLeaks does indicate Donna Brazile was passing on some information about likely questions / questioners in some of the debates.¹ And, yes, that's wrong. And, no, that has nothing to do with the source of the leaks and whether they are something that we should be concerned about.
Indeed, by wrapping up a foreign power's intentional hacking to influence elections with a political kerfuffle, Trump is (intentionally?) trivializing the whole matter.
Also for the record, there's no basis in saying that this action was "illegal". Unethical, perhaps. In violation of contract, maybe. But nothing criminal about it. But nice throwing about of an attack term, Donald.
I will be curious to see how this method of operating works (or doesn't) during the actual presidential administration of Trump. How long can he pull off not addressing critiques and deflecting to an attack? Is there anyone who can really stop him from dealing with all his problems that way over the next four years?
—-
¹ As the Russians either failed to break into the RNC computers, or declined to leak anything they found there (reports are mixed), we have no idea whether the Trump campaign got any advance notice from, for example, its many contacts with Fox News. If they did, their candidate didn't seem to take much advantage of them. And if they did, that doesn't exonerate Brazile of shenanigans. Neither does it address the more important question at this point of Russian cyberattacks in the first place.
Very well stated. I find it difficult to understand the perspective of Trump supporters who defend his language. I'm also finding it more difficult to believe that Trump is not deliberately being a jerk and that he knows full well the power of his tweets. That all amounts to a President elect whose end goal is to punish anyone who dares say anything critical, something I've been hesitant to accuse him of. After all, what would that make him? Most of the time, I've written off articles/comments from people who blast him as a dictator…compare him to Trump…etc as simply hyperbole, but I'm coming around.
And in the end, accepting the fact that our President will represent the absolute worst of our Country is astonishing to me. I mean, I've not enjoyed some previous Presidents from time to time, but I've always mustered enough strength to hold a certain level of respect for the office even going so far as defending personal attacks against him (I argued quite often with my bleed blue parents about GW). So this new attitude is foreign to me.