The Russian hacker thing seems to be a great system for separating the rational and skeptical folks from gullible anti-logic partisans.
The alternate reality is that the Russians hacked the DNC, gave the info to Julian Assange (Wikileaks) to interfere with our election because they hated Hillary and were friends of Trump, and thus they manipulated the election.
When Putin was asked he said. "The Democrats didn’t just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate for the last 6 years. Did I do that as well?"
But none of that makes any sense to those that pay attention the logical consistency:
- (a) we have no good evidence provided by any government agency that the Russians hacked the DNC
- At first it was anonymous sources in the CIA — but the FBI and ODNI and NSA sources disagreed. As did a lot of other intelligence agency veterans.
- Then because the CIA isn’t supposed to be investigating domestic issues, suddenly the DHS/FBI investigation agreed with the CIA now, and they release a document with no evidence and a lot of distractions to support it
- Then it comes out that the FBI was never given access to the Democrat servers, and thus the FBI was taking the word of a private security concern? Really.
- WaPo was saying it was a sophisticated hack, only doable by state actors — while security analysis say it was childish stuff that could have been done by 14 year olds
- So the ONI was forced to release another document, that said they were confident it was a Russian influence campaign to undermine Hillary and the Democratic process, and they were the source of the Wikileaks material. But again the sum of the evidence offered are abstracts like, RT (Russian Television) was more favorable to Trump than Hillary, they stopped being as Anti-America immediately after the election, and Guccifer 2.0 might have been more than one person (so they think it was a coordinated effort). And security experts agree: this is pretty thin evidence if they want to convince anyone with an ounce of skepticism (critical thinking skills). So it’ll be good enough for the Democrats and Media. http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/06/experts-call-declassified-russia-report-disappointing-underwhelming/?utm_campaign=thedcpolitics&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social
- (b) even if the Russian did hack, that’s not proof that the Russians
- (1) were the source of the Wikileaks material – the FBI, Russia, Julian Assange, and a UK intelligence asset agreed that Wikileaks was a leak (not a hack),
- (2) leaked to make Hillary lose or Trump win (then have to prove that was the Russians intent)
- (c) the intelligence sources never provided a good motive for Russia to want Trump over Hillary:
- (1) she was the one that got Russia control over the U.S.’s uranium deposits
- (2) Trump appears he’s far more competent and better negotiator — and lots of reasons to think the Russians would have preferred an incompetent Hillary over Trump.
- Putin likes playing the strong masculine man among weaklings : wrestling bears, never taking pictures with people taller than him and wearing heeled shoes to make his 5’6” frame appear taller (Trump is 6’3”)
- Russia does most things for how it plays internally/externally — Putin praising Trump, paints him into a corner
- Trump’s picks of Mattis and Bolton are both very Hawkish and will be far more difficult for Russia than any of Hillary’s picks would have been
- (3) if they wanted to bribe Hillary, they could have just used the Clinton foundation to funnel money to her, like other governments had
- (4) the only motive they have is that the Russians were mad at Hillary for tampering with their election first — but then if that’s true, it makes the hack retaliation for something we did first, and thus Obama administration has no moral high ground. So even their best case argument makes them look like thin-skinned hypocrites. (Fix the security, don’t blame the attackers for doing back what you did to them first). Remember the U.S. and this administration has messed with many other countries elections including: Israel, Russia, Honduras, Guatemala, Iran, Afghanistan, others.
- (5) Remember, it was the Democrats Icon (Ted Kennedy) that went to the Russians and begged them for help in interfering with the election of Reagan. And it was the Russians that intereferred with FDR to get him elected. But they’ll forget their own history when convenient: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634
- (d) the people that voted against Hillary or for Trump didn’t have the leaks as their primary motive: they had decided long before, and over other issues
- According to exit polls or demographics, there were many disatisfied voters wanting a change from Obamanomics and identity politics, and the undecideds didn’t break for Hillary.
- This was a shock to the media, who was using biased polls with +11 oversampling of democrats, but it wasn’t a shock to those seeing Trump fill football stadiums and Hillary unable to fill meeting rooms, when wasn’t she did campaign, which was less often than he did.
- So even if the Russians were behind it AND they wanted to swing the election, there’s still no evidence that it had an impact on swing voters who said they voted on Clinton’s criminality, un-likability, and not wanting four more years of Obamanomics. And no one has showed a tie about how the wikileaks info really mattered. By the time they came out, most
- (e) letting out the truth about how the Democrats had manipulated the election (both primary and general) is more a public service than a violation of our democracy
- how is telling the truth (well timed or not) a problem for a democracy? In order for it to be a problem, you have to show that what they said was incorrect, and no one has demonstrated the emails were false.
- If telling the truth delegitimizes an election, then words mean nothing.
- (f) If the Russians were hacking and they really wanted to harm the Obama or Clinton campaign, they could have done us a far bigger service (and more damage to the administration/elections) by just releasing any of the following. So the argument that they were trying to manipulate the election means they either weren’t very good at hacking, or weren’t trying very hard to manipulate the election. Imagine if the following had been released:
- hack and share Obama’s college transcripts too
- can they hack the 30,000 missing Clinton emails
- Hack and share the information about the Clinton Foundation and the missing money
- Hack and release either Obama or Hillary’s medical records that were never released
- Hack and release the transcripts of Hillary’s speeches
- (g) most Americans believe Trump would have won without the hacking anyways:
Then there’s the timing:
The DNC had no comments about the Russians, and didn’t care before the election (when this was going on), because they thought they were going to win — so they demanded that Trump sign an agreement with Hillary to not question the outcome/legitimacy of the election when Hillary won, and he agreed. Then after the election and she lost, they flipped out and changed their story on everything. It was only after Hillary and the DNC lost, and Obama admitted the election wasn’t manipulated, that all this stuff came up. That doesn’t seem suspicious or political to you?
The discredited partisan sources (media and Hillary/Obama supporters) were embarrassed by the outcome of the election (and their bad reporting/predictions), were trying to find a scapagoat for how they could be so wrong. So they’e willing to go along with any of the administration/DNC scams about how they should have been right, but they were cheated (and thus a wild-eye’d conspiracy, with no evidence of the Russians, was easier for them to accept than their own incompetence), and tales of sophisticated international espionage gained traction.
Look at the context:
- first the DNC/Hillary/Supporters broke their promise and demanded recounts (which went even more in Trump’s favor)
- then they went with a distraction about the popular vote versus electoral votes (which doesn’t matter)
- then they did riots and violence, many acts of bullying, fake claims of racism/bigotry by Trump supporters
- they tried to intimidate Electoral College folks to break their oaths and switch votes (and sold fake stories about how that was going to happen), or tried to stall the electoral vote
- and then they tried to invent the story that the Russians had recruited elite hackers to hack the election (or tried to carry water for the DNC position) and that’s why the electoral college should vote for someone other than Trump.
- Only it didn’t work, and more Hillary electors refused to vote for her than Trump ones
- And these weren’t elite hackers, they were trollish kids, using very non sophisticate techniques (not looking like State actors)
- The media and democrats that were telling us to never trust the CIA, were suddenly saying we should trust unnamed agency sources without evidence (and without question).
- These are the same folks that didn’t see 9/11 coming
- that screamed “Bush Lied” for listening to the head of CIA and other intelligence agencies around the world when they said, “WMD’s were a slam dunk” in Iraq
- or the same CIA director who was wrong on ISIS/Caliphate and said it was, "unfathomable to think ISIS could establish a caliphate in the Middle East”,
- and Obama confirmed later that, "ISIS was not on my intelligence radar screens” when he was pulling us out of Iraq and drawing red lines that he wouldn’t enforce in Syria (and funding/arming those groups that became ISIS)
- the same CIA director that helped in draft the ill-fated Benghazi talking points (that the attack was a “spontaneous — not a premeditated” protest)
- And ignored evidence that it wasn’t the Russians, like a UK intelligence asset that said he carried the leaks from a disgruntled Bernie supporter to Assange
- The same media/democrats that celebrated hacks/leaks that served their purpose (and claimed first amendment and free speech for hacks/leaks), were suddenly apoplectic over this leak. Why? They had no problems with any of the far bigger and more serious security breaches below (that cost lives of our spies or ruined people). Those had made those with (r)’s after their names look bad (some legitimately, some not), but this time it showed the truth about people with (d)’s after their name. If the Russians exposed the truth about Hillary and did the medias job for them, THAT was the unforgivable sin. Here’s a few samples of the media celebrating leaks/hacks:
- "Pentagon Papers”, Iraq War Logs (at Wikileaks), Valerie Plame affair, Climategate , Snowden/Prism
- No one at the Times called Dan Rather’s Memogate (fake leaks about George Bush’s avoiding service) a threat to democracy, and those turned out to be false
- Someone hacked/leaked Trump’s Tax Returns, and the NYT said they’d go to prison to publish the truth about a Republican (while trying to swing an election)
- Watergate was celebrating swinging elections and toppling administration — that was Pulitzer worthy stuff, even with clandestine deep-throat type leaks
- The fact that the hacks showed the Clinton campaign actually doing what they were accusing the Russians of doing (manipulating our election) is something they’ve totally failed to explore. This is real election tampering, but they had no problem with the democrats doing it by spreading lies and falsehoods, it’s only a problem if the Russians do it to expose the truth:
- Remember the Hillary campaign WAS manipulating our election (in the primary and general election) — that’s what it showed
- Including hiring goons/brown-shirts to go to opposition rally’s and commit assaults/violence and false flag efforts to do bad things and pin it on the other side
- there was an ongoing effort to lobby, coerce, and even threaten electors to get them to change their votes in the Electoral College votes
- After 8 years of doing nothing about serious hacks or real threats to national security, they haven’t even bothered to define what is an official cyber attack, suddenly Obama does his most aggressive foreign policy move (throwing out 35 Russian diplomats), over a minor issue like this, and the media isn’t calling him on it? Remember the other hacks and events that got no response from Obama, to realize what an overreaction throwing Russian diplomats is:
- April 2009 – Hacked the U.S. electrical grid
- April 2009 – Hacked Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter project
- March 2012 – NASA was hacked (as they were in 2011) – had control of NASA computers
- February 2013 – DOE (Dept of Energy) was hacked – 14,000 employee records stolen
- December 2013 – China Hacked Federal Election Commission
- March 2014: Russian invaded and annexed Crimea
- March 2014: Russian destabilized and invaded other parts of Ukraine (Russia violated multiple treaties, Obama breaks our promise to defend Ukraine)
- September 2014 – Hacked U.S. Postal Service – 800,000 employee records
- September 2014 – China Hacked National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- September 2014: Draws Red line in Syria over WMD’s (chemical weapons), then walks away when it’s violated
- October 2014 – White House Website was hacked
- November 2014: State Department was hacked
- April 2015: Dept. of Defense was hacked
- May 2015: IRS was hacked – getting 300,000 tax returns
- June 2015: Office of Personnel Management
- Hillary using a private email security in violation of the law (and that was likely hacked according to the FBI), wasn’t a problem for the media (despite secret, top secret and super-duper top-secret stuff being on there): nothing on it mattered. But her underlings, Podesta gets hacked and it releases truths about the Democrat campaign (and how they were corrupting an election) and not anything vaguely related to national security, and this is what the mainstream media cares about as a big threat? Are they that stupid, or that partisan? Do they get the irony/hypocrisy in the position?
- Here’s the summary of the evidence it was the Russians (as told us by a private firm, since no one in the U.S. government analyzed the hack themselves):
- Some of the malware, resembled techniques the Russians (and everyone else) used, and they touched a Russian service (that lots of hackers use), and one used an alias of a famous Russian secret police force founder: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
- But the FBI never investigated themselves: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-hacked-computer-servers
- A PHP/Wordpress Security Company (the root of the hack) points out how absurd it is to think it was the Russians. https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/
- Imagine how likely it is for a GRU or FSB officer, that would use “Iron” Felix Dzerzhinsky name (the man who founded the Soviet secret police) as their handle in their hacks
- Or how likely it is for a state actor to use a publicly available malware kit, many versions out of date? (P.A.S. version 3.1.0, instead of the latest 4.1.1b) — usually state actors develop their own tools. And the IP traces, etc., show nothing unusual or specific to Russia.
- Some Russians said they felt good about the results (as if that’s conclusive that they were responsible for the leaks, and that the leaks had any significant impact on the election):
- Even the far left sources (and others) are questioning the lack of evidence to support the administrations claims:
- And if it was a hack, the proper responses are not to attack the Russians by throwing out diplomats, but by fixing our security
- And if was a Russian hack, and it was worthy of a response this aggressive — it shows how utterly clueless Obama was in 2012, for criticizing Romney for having concerns about Russia — before they annexed Crimea, Ukraine, and committed these hacks. And Obama openly mocked Romney for trying to restart the cold war.
So what we know is that there’s zero evidence of hacking at the polls, the worst case scenario is that the Russians got the truth about Hillary out, and that influencing an election by telling the truth isn’t a criminal act and doesn’t delegitimize an election. And this is nothing new or unusual, as we’d done it, with lies — so this was better than our actions.
More References and Timeline:
- Ian Bremmer comments on how ineffective Obama has been in all this: https://charlierose.com/videos/29658
- Truth about the agenda behind the leaks: http://nypost.com/2017/01/08/democrats-wage-anti-trump-offensive-for-their-own-gain/
- Which the Russians openly mock: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_US?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-08-05-34-19
- The media only seems to care about security/sanctity of elections when it’s discrediting someone with an (r) after their name. When it shows how their side is corrupting them (e.g Soros, the DNC, or Hillary campaign, subverting ours and other elections) then there’s a virtual black-out on coverage. Selective outrage and hypocrisy in the media is a bigger threat to our democracy than hackers leaking the truth (in my book): http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-bizarre-media-blackout-of-hacked-george-soros-documents/
- This touches on something JOURNALISTS would look into (the moral consistency of the Obama administrations wrt Russia), is there any there, there. Are they being consistent, or is this a lot of hypocritical hand-waving distractions that contradict their policies/behavior before he was a lame-duck: http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-legacy-deceit
Facts/Myths about the hacking:
The summary and timeline of the Russian Hacker invention seems to be the following:
2009.03.06 – One of the first big international moves by the Obama administration (via Hillary Clinton) was to give Russia a “reset button” because relations had chilled since it had invaded Georgia, and because it was the Obama/Hillary administration, they of course got the translation wrong on the button, which read “Overcharged” instead of “Reset”. This sent a clear signal to the Russians that they weren’t dealing with a competent administration and that future invasions would be met with gifts and platitudes.
2011 – Putin blames Clinton for fomenting mass protests in Russia after disputed 2011 parliamentary elections that challenged his rule
2015 Summer – a phishing campaign (the least sophisticate hack known to mankind) sends a fake email to over 1,000 government agents gets the smartest man in the DNC (Leon Podesta) to give up his password, in a social hack worthy of a 14 year old or Nigerian Prince.
2016.06.14 – WaPo publishes an article that has a cyber security firm explain that two agencies (who may be tied to the Russians), had attacked the DNC for over a year. But since the only thing they’re sure they took was Opposition Research on Donald Trump — so the DNC and WaPo (but I repeat myself), wasn’t that concerned. Later the CIA claimed they’d hacked both DNC and RNC but only exposed the DNC info — but there’s no evidence they succeeded on the RNC.
2016 Sept (published 2016.11.03) – Julian Assange and his allies explained that these were leaks not hacks (someone inside the DNC gave them the emails) so the source of the leaks were NOT the Russians. Craig Murray (A U.K. intelligence operative and associate of Assange) said he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff of the emails and he gave the leaks to Assange, and his source was an angry Bernie supporter in the DNC, not the Russians.
2016.12.11 – Assange/allies go further and explain that the Obama administration has brutally persecuted whistleblowers and hackers through extradition, but in this case, while the CIA claims to know who tried to subvert an election, but it’s not worth the effort to try to extradite them for prosecution in the U.S. to set an example?
2016.12.15 Julian Assange went on to Sean Hannity to emphatically repeat it was not the Russians, and Hillary and the Obama administration is making this crap up. And jokes this wasn’t much of “hack” anyways
2016.12.16 – NSA Whistleblower agrees with Assange that it was an inside leak (and not the Russians) – http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-16/nsa-whistleblower-destroys-obamas-russia-narrative-hard-evidence-points-inside-leak-
2016.12.16 – The Hillary/Obama campaign starts speaking about how the
2016.11.03 Foreign Ministry spokeswoman (Maria Zakharova) of Russia says, "the “public bickering with Russia” before the US election is probably a “smokescreen” to draw the voters’ attention away from serious domestic issues”
2016.11.25 Obama Admin Officially Told the NY that the elections "Were Free and Fair" — and went on "The Federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day. As we have noted before, we remained confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out on election day. As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
2016.12.29 – The Obama administration gets the NCCIC (DHS & FBI) to release a political document on "Grizzley Steppe” — codename for some investigation which admits the hack was caused by a 2015 phishing campaign with no hard evidence of ties to the “Russians” and contains no useful content or details (or anything vaguely looking like evidence of the Russians as the source of the hack, let alone of the wikileads info), and instead talks mostly about basic security procedures to avoid other basic hacks that weren’t the cause of this leak. Many in the security community and journalists scoff at this having any material value, while polemics are all convinced that this proves it was the dirty Russians.
2016.12.29 – The Obama administration retaliates against the Russians by throwing out 35 diplomats (after ignoring dozens of far worse events in the past). Screw with national security or sovereignty, use chemical weapons, invade neighbors, nothing. But tell the truth about Democrats (using their own emails), and that’s worthy of international escalation.
2017.01.04 – WaPo invents that the Russians were also responsible for a PowerGrid attack — and the story is soon debunked
2017.01.05 – Ali Watkins of Buzzfeed exposes that neither the FBI nor DHS (nor any other government agency) had bothered to investigate the DNC servers which were compromised by Grizzley Steppe. Also, they had done no investigation of their own on the topic, but had relied on a private firm (CrowdStrike) hired by the DNC. Showing how thorough an investigation the government had done (which was none), and thus how much value their opinion/report on the topic is. (NYT, WaPo and their readers ignore this key nugget).
The whole DNC/Administration/Press position on this, is so mock-worthy, there’s been a torrent of meme’s on the topic mocking the Hillary Clinton/NYT/WaPo position.