Russian Hacker vs. DNC leaks

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.
  • (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: 
  • (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: 
  • (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? 

What happened? 

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:

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: 

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) –

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.