Donald Trump asks for help from Russian hackers. Cher isn’t happy

Come November maybe we’ll all be singing “If I could turn back time…”

Donald Trump asks for help from Russian hackers. Cher isn't happy

Publicity-shy reality TV show host, avid Twitterholic, and hopeful first-time politician Donald Trump has somehow managed to grab the headlines again.

The Republican nomination for the most important job in the world has done what he does best (steal the news agenda from things which are probably more important) by seemingly asking Russian hackers to help him out in his upcoming presidential bunfight with Hillary Clinton.

Here is what Donald Trump said at a press conference, referring to the tactically-timed leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee’s network:

Sign up to our free newsletter.
Security news, advice, and tips.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens.”

Some, of course, have suggested that the DNC email hack was perpetrated by Russian hackers.

The Trumpster stepped back a little in a subsequent tweet, where he acknowledged the possibility that it could be another country instead of Russia that hacked the Democrats, or indeed an individual:

Donald Trump tweet

“If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”

Even with that minor correction, it does sound as though Donald Trump may have just encouraged President Putin and his cronies to provide him with some ammunition to help him win the US presidential election in November.

Of course, if you love Trump you will just laugh and say “that guy! he’s such a card!”. And if you don’t love Trump you won’t laugh, and might possibly use a different four-letter word beginning with C.

Judging by Cher’s response – yes, *that* Cher – she is definitely unimpressed about Donald Trump asking a hostile government to engage in “cybor warfare”.

Cher tweets

What I don’t understand is how Cher can be *so* good at using emojis, and yet hasn’t worked out how to turn off Caps-Lock.

By the way, Donald Trump might have some history in encouraging hackers to target high-up politicians:


Graham Cluley is an award-winning keynote speaker who has given presentations around the world about cybersecurity, hackers, and online privacy. A veteran of the computer security industry since the early 1990s, he wrote the first ever version of Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit for Windows, makes regular media appearances, and is the co-host of the popular "Smashing Security" podcast. Follow him on Twitter, Mastodon, Threads, Bluesky, or drop him an email.

27 comments on “Donald Trump asks for help from Russian hackers. Cher isn’t happy”

  1. George

    "the most important job in the world". Suuure.

    1. Graham CluleyGraham Cluley · in reply to George

      My view is that the person who looks after the most important button in the world has the most important job in the world.

      1. Chris · in reply to Graham Cluley

        So the tech who makes sure the computers are safe and running properly that presumably allow the most important button in the world to actually do something if pressed is the most important person in the world? The Geek have inherited the earth. Well, kind of…

        1. Graham CluleyGraham Cluley · in reply to Chris

          Huzzah! We did it!

      2. John S · in reply to Graham Cluley

        If Congress have their way and revoke her security clearance Hillary Clinton even as President may not be able to press the button as she won't be given the codes

        1. John S · in reply to John S

          And if anyone says this can't happen to the commander in chief it already has. FDR was blocked by General Marshal from having access to top secret messages just prior to Pearl Habour Attack. The reason was because a top secret document was found just lying on a desk open to anyone who passed by

  2. Matt P

    Looking at the tweets supposedly by Cher – would she actually classify Russia as an enemy of the US? If this was her then she needs to choose her words a lot more carefully maybe!!!

    1. Alex · in reply to Matt P

      You mean you'd not classify Russia as such? Russia is a hostile power and enemy of long standing. So is China. No amount of economic snuggling with the US is going to change the fact that they are NOT our friends.

      1. Carlos · in reply to Alex

        We would be well advised to allow friendship to develop with Russia and President P. Our and Europe’s industry will be helping R’s for decades to reach western standards. If R turns to China for help we will soon have major problems. China already owns too much of US industry and will hold us to ransom at will!

      2. DavID · in reply to Alex

        The Russia that ruled but then pulled out of the USSR might have been expected to be more friendly to the USSR's powerful enemy. But politics sometimes makes strange bad feelings instead of strange bedfellows. And perhaps Vladimir is their Emperor Napoleon after the (third) Russian revolution. (They had two in 1917.)

  3. Etaoin

    Cher seems to be unaware of democrat darling Senator Edward Kennedy's plea to Russia to help defeat Ronald Reagan in the 1984 elections. The secret quid-pro-quo offer was discovered in Soviet papers after the fall of the communists:

    The other interesting thing is the democrats are now saying that Hillary's deleted "personal" emails are of national security importance. Yesterday they were just trivia that had no importance to the FBI investigation of her illicit server.

    1. John S · in reply to Etaoin

      Why am I not surprised when his father (the former bootlegger) recruited help from the Mafia to get JFK elected President

    2. DavID · in reply to Etaoin

      Maybe if Ted had been less obstructive to President Carter, Ronnie Raygun wouldn't have been elected in 1980, and perhaps not run in 1984. But it seems like Ted thought he could have been President, without explaining the Chappaquiddick incident.

    3. DavID · in reply to Etaoin

      IF, as we should never 100% assume, Chebrikov and Tunney were both truthful …

      I don't see that Andropov appearing on USA television would be against the interests of the USA. In fact it would be good for the USA's image, unless there was quid pro quo as with Saddam and G. H. W. Bush. If Andropov had some inconvenient truths to impart, wouldn't USA citizens be better of hearing them instead of being less informed? The other specific offer isn't specific enough for me to have an opinion on. It might relate to the reports that Ronald Reagan thought the USA had a missile gap, not understanding that USA's MIRV missiles had more warheads than the USSR FOBS missiles.

      But as a whole this sneaky offer sounds unsavoury, and reminiscent of the shameful Iran-Contra arrangements. Which President Reagan & VP Bush MAY not have understood, thought about, or even known about.

      Both I think far worse than Trump's tweets, let alone Republican Senators' feedback on whether a treaty would be observed in the near future. (I don't believe illusions provide reliable solutions.)

  4. Jeff

    All of this is a smokescreen to divert attention from the actual emails of the DNC. The attention span of these voters is about as long as a 30 minute sitcom – minus commercials. I would be super pissed-off if I were a Sanders supporter.

    1. John S · in reply to Jeff

      Instead of "God Bless American" the comment should now be "God Help America"

    2. DavID · in reply to Jeff

      But would Sanders have attracted many swinging voters once the Republicans started attacking him? I think the Dems needed to pick a third alternative, less extreme than Sanders' rhetoric seems to modern moderates and without the baggage of Clinton. (S)He wouldn't need to have the experience of Clinton, just a reasonably successful run as a Governor or as Mayor of a large city, and no skeletons to be dug up. I guess none wanted to look like a spoiler by running against Hilary. I doubt the innumerate flim-flam Trump would intimidate such a candidate.

      On the other hand, if the GOP stopped picking simpletons, old men losing touch or fakers, they could have been reasonably certain of beating Hilary.

      On the gripping hand, it looks like a great year for a competent independent to run against the two big party candidates both believed to be liars or deluded. Winning would still be extremely difficult, (especially as the Libertarians and Greens may do relatively well also), but a really strong showing could reduce the perception that only the big two parties can supply a President. I think the USA would be better off with a President not aligned with the parties dominating the House and Senate.

      (I regret that the Ferengi didn't win in 1992. Perot was leading the polls before he temporarily pulled out. I doubt he could have been so bad in four years that the USA would be overall worse off now.)

  5. John S

    I think the American Administration now and to be (if it's Clinton) are to be feared as they and other members of NATO seem hell bent in provoking Russia into armed conflict. Its only a few days ago when Clinton said "I'm prepared to push the red button" In other words she's prepared to kill tens of thousands mostly innocent civilians to satisfy her ego

    1. Graham CluleyGraham Cluley · in reply to John S

      To be pragmatic for a second, is there any point in investing billions in a nuclear deterrent if you say that there are no circumstances under which you are prepared to deploy it?

      If you have a nuclear arsenal, but say publicly “No, I wouldn’t be prepared to use it”… well, what kind of message does that send to potential enemies? It’s hardly a deterrent then, is it? It’s just an expensive folly.

      Of course, this is a separate argument from whether we should have nuclear weapons or not. But seeing as America has decided it should have nukes, it would be bizarre for the potential US president to say they wouldn’t be prepared to push the button… however, ghastly the consequences might be if that ever happened.

      God forbid it ever comes to that.

      1. Alex · in reply to Graham Cluley

        Unfortunately with the caliber of the people on the ballot these days, it just might come to that. Not out of need, but out of ego. Wait. What am I saying? They'd need to be crazy to deploy nukes on that basis….. er…. wait…..

      2. DavID · in reply to Graham Cluley

        Absolutely! Even if you wouldn't really push the button, there's no point spending billion$ to have a capability it is even suspected you probably wouldn't use. On the other hand, its mostly wasteful to have the ridiculous over-kill capability that the USSR and USA have. Presumably they want to be clearly ahead of the other significant nuclear powers, but all any of them need is the capability to ruinously damage all their opponents important infrastructure. That's too terrible for their enemy to risk, but much more capability than that is not enough to prevent a disastrous counter attack. And yet the big two have wasted astonishing amounts on that excess capability. Fighting poverty, standing together to remove or constrain tinpot dictators or spending that money on useful infrastructure would have made their own nations much better off in REAL wealth, at no significant loss of being too scary for even each other to attack directly.

        (Then we just need leaders to avoid megaphone diplomacy. Which will take political courage.)

        1. DavID · in reply to DavID

          By " … USSR have" I meant USSR had and Russia now has (less though that is!)

  6. Alex

    Many people gag at the thought of either candidate this election. How could we have allowed ourselves to be pushed into such a choice? Maybe it IS time for a 3rd party candidate to inhabit the Oval Office for awhile.

    "Joke" or not, even an inexperienced politician should know better that to publicly suggest that a foreign power, (especially a hostile one), have anything to do with our election process. Though they probably have more input than we'd like to believe anyway.

    As to Cher, though every American has the right to comment on the situation, I'm tired of celebrity weigh-ins on everything under the sun. As if singing a few songs or acting in a few movies or being athletic means the media should headline your opinions on every subject and inflict them upon the rest of us.

    1. Joe · in reply to Alex

      To me, I see that Obama and the Hollywood actors are about equal. If Obama speaks WITHOUT his Teleprompter which has been scripted by someone else, he sounds like a blabbering idiot. The same goes for actors. If they have a script written by someone else they can sometimes be entertaining in a movie. But when they speak for themselves, they're just like Obama. Another bunch of blabbering idiots that in most cases should be ignored.

      1. DavID · in reply to Joe

        I probably haven't seen Obama ad libbing then. That's possible, I've only seen him speak a few times, he could have rehearsed, although he probably didn't always have a teleprompter.

        From the time the USA embassy was occupied Jimmy Carter held a media Q + A every day. I could imagine Slick Willy doing that, although his dodging and attempting to bluff was sometimes obvious. Likewise I can imagine Hilary being able to handle questions without looking like a buffoon, even if sometimes she lacked total credibility.

        The Donald on the other hand, seems to have at least Bill Clinton's temper, ego and even more to hide, without Bill's self control, intelligence or charm when he's not offended. The USA will survive either Presidency, even though I think neither is fit to be deputy mayor of a one person town. But unfortunately blabbering idiots aren't ignored if they are even a candidate for, let alone become President of the USA or Russia etc. One group who's image overseas has been tainted even more than that of the USA by the last few GOP Presidents, VPs and most of their candidates, is that of the Republican party itself. But of course, not to yella dog Reps, anymore than yella dog Dems regret any of their candidates.

        There are serious, substantial Republican politicians, (Orin Hatch first comes to mind), but they rarely end up as an endorsed candidate for President. The American veneration of sincere ignoramuses goes back centuries but recently seems to be especially strong in the Reps since, well I guess you don't want to risk another Nixon huh?

    2. DavID · in reply to Alex

      I agree with you about what the crass media does with their dominance, but of course celebrity's tweets etc will get more followers who choose to treat their opinions as more important than those of a little known expert. Is it the fault of the celebrities? Do you think they ought not exercise the right you acknowledged they have to spout of in public?

  7. Don

    So if you actually played the whole segment of the speech you would get the full context. Also if you don't get that all countries spy against friends, enemies, and frienemies. Hillary is crooked. Trump is the proverbial "kid who wants to play at the big table". You can cry and complain but he actually created jobs and played the game that Hillary, DNC, RNC, and the 20+ year politicians created and they don't like it.

What do you think? Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.