There's scant evidence that the Russians were behind DNC (Podesta) email hacks, and certainly not the leak to Wikileaks, or that they'd want Trump to win over Hillary. And if they were, that makes them guilty of investigative journalism and leaking the truth to the American public. There is lots of evidence of Democrats and media manipulating the election, lied to the public, and spread falsehoods about this hacking conspiracy theory to undermine the U.S. (and especially the legitimacy of this Presidency). (Gaslit those who questioned their narrative). And they used this attack as an excuse to distract away from their actions.
❝ 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? ❞
- 1 What happened
- 2 Russian Hackers: The Fiction
- 3 Russian Hackers: The Evidence
- 4 Context
- 5 Obama and Hackers
- 6 Trump: Hackers timeline
- 7 References
- 8 More
Russia seems to have done what they've always done, which is spin things on RT, to try to manipulate our Press/public to inject moral ambiguity questions about our sides behavior versus theirs, and they attacked the frontrunner more than the challenger. That's hardly proof they wanted Trump to win, it's more proof they couldn't read the polls any better than Democrats did. And that's nothing new, and nothing different was done this election than any other -- or than we do to their and other elections.
Obama spoke out about his hatred of Marie Le Pen, and his support of Emmanuel Macron during the French Election. He also sent staffers over to Israel to work against the re-election of Netanyahu. Are those high crimes and something we should prosecute Obama for? Because if it's not wrong for us to do it, then it isn't wrong for them to do it back. Pick one standard.
Hacking means either:
- They directly hacked our polling places - zero evidence of that - There's been multiple intelligence reports that said there was no attempts (let alone successes) at hacking any voting machines (what "hacking the election" means to the informed).
- They hacked our media and manipulated the public with propaganda and false information - zero evidence of that We can't even prove they were behind Assange (Wikileaks) telling the truth. Let alone any evidence that these leaks had a measurable impact on swing states.
- The FBI and others cleared Trump from being involved with the Russians on any of this, the only question was whether maybe some of his people talked to the Russians, or followed proper process during the transition. The continuing political witch hunt is who else made a procedural error in not disclosing completely legal discussions with the Russians.
So at worst, the Russians were guilty of investigative journalism and leaking TRUE information about the Democrats and Hillary, and how THEY had actually manipulated the election, and how contemptuous of the electorate they were. Julian Assange (Wikileaks) and other sources came forward and said they got their evidence from a DNC insider (disgruntled Bernie supporter) that leaked, and not from the Russians: which makes sense since the timing was off. But whoever did it, we owe them our thanks and gratitude for helping to inform the public (and do the medias job for them). So while throwing shade on Hillary (who the Russians thought was going to win) might be fun for them, that's hardly "Hacking" an election.
Everything else has been handwaving distractions orchestrated by the Hillary Campaign Machine and their allies in the media, to avoid the harsh reality that they lost the election, long before the emails were ever released -- and even if they hadn't, the Russians did America a public service by leaking the truth about the Democrats.
None of the fiction makes any sense to those that pay attention to the logic:
- (a) we have no good evidence provided by any government agency that the Russians hacked the DNC: since the FBI never investigated the hack, and is just taking the word of a DNC hired private security concern, the claim seems specious. See: Good Evidence
- (b) even if the Russian did hack the DNC, that’s not proof that the Russians were the source of the Wikileaks material (especially since the FBI, Russia, Julian Assange, and a UK intelligence asset all agreed that Wikileaks was done by a DNC leaker and not the Podesta email hack).
- (c) And no one (least of all "intelligence sources") ever provided a good motive for why Russia would want Trump over Hillary.
- (d) 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
- (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. 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 what does that say about our election in the first place?
- (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 chances) 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.
- (g) most Americans believe Trump would have won without the hacking
The sum total of the "evidence" released is:
- (a) some of the malware touched a Russian email service that a company once used, that once contracted for the Russians (Fancy Bear)
- (b) one of the hackers used the handle "Iron Felix", a famous Russian secret police force founder
- (c) some Russians said they "felt good" about the results of the election
- (d) WaPo ran editorials about the sophisticated Russian hack.
Counter to that was Security experts (including self) laughed off the evidence as weak sauce:
- The server (which was never released to the FBI to investigate), showed that the download was too fast for an internet connection (and looked like a thumb drive copy)
- Wikileaks said it was a Democrat insider (they've never been caught in a lie: their credibility is critical to their existence)
- When Seth Rich was killed, Wikileaks implied that he had been the leaker, and offered a reward for catching his murderer
- The FBI director had internally closed the investigation months BEFORE interviewing Hillary, and the FBI got caught offering a Russian Hacker a deal (money, free apartment, citizenship), if he'd falsely confessed to being the source of the hack, and many of the agencies that were credited with agreeing with national intelligence, said they never saw the evidence or signed off on anything.
So far, no one has come up with evidence of a hack.
To understand what happened before this whole "Russian Hackers" scandal blew up in the media, you need to remember what happened because of the election:
Discrediting / Distraction
- The discredited partisan sources (media and Hillary/Obama supporters) were embarrassed by the outcome of the election their bad reporting/predictions had bathed them in egg and they were desperately trying to find a scapagoat for how they could be so wrong. They leapt on the DNC invention about how they weren't wrong, just cheated -- and with no evidence of the Russians, they went wild with the story because that was easier to accept than their own incompetence. And wild conspiracy theories of sophisticated international espionage gained traction
- the DNC/Hillary Media machine first tried to sell that it was all old racist white males and deplorables that gave Trump the election, but some people can read exit polls and it showed that it was the young (not the old) and blacks, latinos and Asians that voted for Trump more than Republicans in prior elections. Read: Exit Polls. Rather than report those facts, they changed the topic.
- 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 at all)
- then they did riots and violence (many acts of bullying) to try to pretend that Trump had destabilized us, when it was the violent left that had done so
- there were many fake claims of racism/bigotry by Trump supporters... but over time the truth will come out, that while hate crimes may have had a small blip, fake-hate crimes have had an astronomical leap.
- then 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 . Only it didn’t work, and more Hillary electors refused to vote for her than Trump ones
- 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 these weren’t elite hackers, they were trollish kids, using very non sophisticate techniques (not looking like State actors) 
- The media and democrats had been telling us during the Bush administration to never trust the CIA, were suddenly saying we should trust unnamed agency sources without evidence (and without question)*.
Trust the same folks that:
- Also remember that there was a ton of evidence contradicting the Russian narrative, but that wasn't getting as much attention. Like UK intelligence asset that said he carried the leaks from a disgruntled Bernie supporter to Assange. (Shhhh).
- And finally the narrative is switching to Comey was at fault. Not for protecting Hillary from Crimes, or allowing the DOJ to illegally share information during an investigate in tarmac meetings about grandkids -- but because he admitted to the people that he'd found MORE evidence of Hillary breaking the law, and they were investigating excuses for why not to prosecute her for that.
So we know the media/left was willing to go along with any of the administration/DNC narrative about how She should have won, but they were cheated (and thus a wild-eye’d conspiracy, was easier for them to accept than their own incompetence. And that's the fertilizer in which the "Russian" narrative grew.
After 8 years of doing nothing about serious hacks or real threats to national security, suddenly Obama does his most aggressive foreign policy move (throwing out 35 Russian diplomats), just weeks before he left office, because of the possibility that they might have hacked the DNC and leaked the truth to the public.
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/Obama (despite secret, top secret and super-duper top-secret stuff being on there): nothing on it mattered. But her underlings, Podesta gets hacked and releases truths about the Democrat campaign (and how they were corrupting an election) and not anything vaguely related to national security, and that's a threat to national security? The strongest foreign policy signal the Obama administration ever sent to the world was: never, ever, tell the truth about Democrat corruption and abuse of power.
The summary and timeline of the Russian Hacker invention seems to be the following:
- 2009.03.06 - Obama admin (via Hillary Clinton) gives Russia a mis-translated “reset button” because relations had chilled since Russia had invaded Georgia.
- 2011 - Putin blames Clinton for fomenting mass protests in Russia after disputed 2011 parliamentary elections that challenged his rule
- 2015 Summer - a spear-phishing campaign (the least sophisticate hack known to man) 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 claiming that two agencies (who may be tied to the Russians), had attacked the DNC for over a year. It was scoffed at by security researchers.
- 2016 Sept - Julian Assange and his allies explained that these were leaks not hacks: a person inside the DNC gave them the emails.
- 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, 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.
- 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 election wasn't her fault
- 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 looking like evidence of the Russians as the source of the hacks, let alone of the wikileads info).
- 2016.12.29 - The Obama administration retaliates against the Russians by throwing out 35 diplomats
- 2017.01.04 - WaPo invents that the Russians were also responsible for a PowerGrid attack — and the story is soon debunked as FakeNews
- 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 Stepp. Also, they had done no investigation of their own on the topic, but had relied on a private firm (CrowdStrike) hired by the DNC.
- Americans on Trumps win: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4130402/Trump-won-election-despite-Russia-s-hacking.html
- Bully the electoral college: http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittles-firewall-hillarys-final-disgrace
- Elite Russian Hackers did it:
- Only this looked more like amateur hour:
- 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/
- Long list of errors around this Russia, Hackers, James Comey that FakeNews sources like CNN have gotten wrong: http://circa.com/politics/accountability/stories-the-news-media-got-wrong-about-donald-trump-james-comey-and-russia
- Facebook Ads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/facebook-says-it-sold-political-ads-to-russian-company-during-2016-election/2017/09/06/32f01fd2-931e-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.bde4004db35d