This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/donald-trump-vs-the-cia-on-russia.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Donald Trump vs. the C.I.A. on Russia Donald Trump vs. the C.I.A. on Russia
(about 2 hours later)
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Re “C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence” (front page, Dec. 12):Re “C.I.A. Judgment on Russia Built on Swell of Evidence” (front page, Dec. 12):
If Donald J. Trump were half the man he claims he is, half the patriot he pretends he is, half the leader he’d like Americans to believe he is, he would not only not dismiss the intelligence on Russia’s hacking of our national election, he would also wholeheartedly lead the charge for a thorough investigation.If Donald J. Trump were half the man he claims he is, half the patriot he pretends he is, half the leader he’d like Americans to believe he is, he would not only not dismiss the intelligence on Russia’s hacking of our national election, he would also wholeheartedly lead the charge for a thorough investigation.
And he would have done this not today or last week but last summer, when news of Russian interference first broke. Just a hint that any foreign government, let alone one as hostile to American interests as that controlled by the former K.G.B. agent Vladimir Putin, should be sufficient to make any American’s blood boil. Just a whiff should be more than enough for an American president-to-be to demand an immediate investigation by Congress. And he would have done this not today or last week but last summer, when news of Russian interference first broke. Just a hint that any foreign government, let alone one as hostile to American interests as that controlled by the former K.G.B. agent Vladimir Putin, was meddling in our electoral process should be sufficient to make any American’s blood boil. Just a whiff should be more than enough for an American president-to-be to demand an immediate investigation by Congress.
The fact that Mr. Trump, instead, demeans and dismisses intelligence agencies and the overwhelming evidence they have amassed makes crystal clear — as if further clarification were still necessary — that Mr. Trump’s one and only interest is Mr. Trump.The fact that Mr. Trump, instead, demeans and dismisses intelligence agencies and the overwhelming evidence they have amassed makes crystal clear — as if further clarification were still necessary — that Mr. Trump’s one and only interest is Mr. Trump.
As he himself has said and tweeted so often: “Sad.”As he himself has said and tweeted so often: “Sad.”
LEWIS M. SIMONSLEWIS M. SIMONS
WashingtonWashington
The writer, a longtime foreign correspondent, was a winner of the 1986 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting.The writer, a longtime foreign correspondent, was a winner of the 1986 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
The “swell of evidence” in the headline is revealed in the article to be “what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.” In other words, no hard evidence at all, but rather conjecture — amplified (I would suggest) by groupthink, a level of anti-Russian hysteria not seen since the Cold War, and wishful thinking of establishment national security figures regarding the November election.The “swell of evidence” in the headline is revealed in the article to be “what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.” In other words, no hard evidence at all, but rather conjecture — amplified (I would suggest) by groupthink, a level of anti-Russian hysteria not seen since the Cold War, and wishful thinking of establishment national security figures regarding the November election.
BRIAN DEIMLINGBRIAN DEIMLING
BrooklynBrooklyn
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Re “Russia’s Hand in America’s Election” (editorial, Dec. 12):Re “Russia’s Hand in America’s Election” (editorial, Dec. 12):
It is likely that one of Russia’s primary goals in helping Donald Trump’s campaign was to scuttle the global climate agreement. Because the climate agreement is intended to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, it will inevitably drive down the price of oil, Russia’s main source of economic and political power.It is likely that one of Russia’s primary goals in helping Donald Trump’s campaign was to scuttle the global climate agreement. Because the climate agreement is intended to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, it will inevitably drive down the price of oil, Russia’s main source of economic and political power.
Mr. Trump’s expected choice of Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, Rex Tillerson, to be his secretary of state, who as you point out already has “a close and profitable relation with Mr. Putin,” would seem to bear this out.Mr. Trump’s expected choice of Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, Rex Tillerson, to be his secretary of state, who as you point out already has “a close and profitable relation with Mr. Putin,” would seem to bear this out.
PAUL JELLINEKPAUL JELLINEK
Mercerville, N.J.Mercerville, N.J.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
If the Russians are responsible for the hacking, we should contain our outrage. The United States has been the world champion in interfering in the domestic politics of sovereign nations for years, in Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Iran and Guatemala, to name just a handful. By all means we should investigate, take measures to prevent future interference and issue a stern warning. But we have no moral high ground here.If the Russians are responsible for the hacking, we should contain our outrage. The United States has been the world champion in interfering in the domestic politics of sovereign nations for years, in Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Iran and Guatemala, to name just a handful. By all means we should investigate, take measures to prevent future interference and issue a stern warning. But we have no moral high ground here.
FELIX LA CAPRIAFELIX LA CAPRIA
Ben Lomond, Calif.Ben Lomond, Calif.
To the Editor:To the Editor:
The more that Donald Trump and his former campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, deride the American intelligence agencies, vehemently deny the possibility of Russia’s involvement in our elections and ridicule anyone proposing an investigation, the more I think that he not only knew about Russia’s involvement, but also actually condoned it.The more that Donald Trump and his former campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, deride the American intelligence agencies, vehemently deny the possibility of Russia’s involvement in our elections and ridicule anyone proposing an investigation, the more I think that he not only knew about Russia’s involvement, but also actually condoned it.
With apologies to Shakespeare, “He doth protest too much, methinks.”With apologies to Shakespeare, “He doth protest too much, methinks.”
GREGORY VOUROSGREGORY VOUROS
SeattleSeattle
To the Editor:To the Editor:
Didn’t the C.I.A. provide President George W. Bush with the “swell of evidence” he needed to support his invasion of Iraq?Didn’t the C.I.A. provide President George W. Bush with the “swell of evidence” he needed to support his invasion of Iraq?
STAN FROUDSTAN FROUD
New YorkNew York
To the Editor:To the Editor:
When Donald Trump won the election, I found the mere idea of his receiving the top-secret President’s Daily Brief terrifying. Who knows just what he might do with that information? What didn’t even cross my mind is that he would dismiss those briefings as a waste of time and delegate them to the vice president-elect, Mike Pence. This is even more terrifying, but it should not have surprised me.When Donald Trump won the election, I found the mere idea of his receiving the top-secret President’s Daily Brief terrifying. Who knows just what he might do with that information? What didn’t even cross my mind is that he would dismiss those briefings as a waste of time and delegate them to the vice president-elect, Mike Pence. This is even more terrifying, but it should not have surprised me.
Why let facts distort your worldview and prevent you from acting on that worldview? A fact-free campaign will be followed by a fact-free presidency.Why let facts distort your worldview and prevent you from acting on that worldview? A fact-free campaign will be followed by a fact-free presidency.
TEEMU RUSKOLATEEMU RUSKOLA
New YorkNew York
The writer is a professor of law at Emory University.The writer is a professor of law at Emory University.