Q: Did Russia hack our election?

From iGeek
Revision as of 22:30, 11 August 2018 by Ari (talk | contribs) (1 revision imported)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Q: Did Russia hack our election?


A: No. Russian might have interfered in our election... in retaliation for us interfering in theirs first, but there's zero evidence they altered the outcome, or meddled with the tally in any way -- and that's what "hacking" means. To hack our election implies that Russia got into our voting machines, digitally manipulated our media, or swung the public (or delegates) voting through manipulation. Nobody has been able to show that Russia tampered with a voter machine, changed a vote, or made a vote illegally. There's not even any evidence that through various PR or hacking efforts, they were able to change a single voters mind, let alone an electoral vote (Trump won by 77 of those), and they certainly didn't to swing the election. We know the Chinese hacked the Election Commission in 2013 (amongst others) and are a bigger threat, and that Obama ignored both Russian and Chinese hacking attempts in general, for 8 years. But that isn't hacking our election.

This isn't just pedantic, this is foundational in understanding who is telling the truth and who is not. "Hacking the election" is just a smokescreen invented by the Hillary campaign (after they lost) to provide cover for losing the most winnable election in history. When asked about hacking the election, Vladimir Putin replied, "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?" Which sort of sums it up. When Putin is more honest than our Democrats, media and intelligence agencies, then there's a problem.

If the Russians really wanted Trump to win, 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) by just releasing any of the following: (a) Obama’s college transcripts (b) the 30,000 missing Clinton emails (c) information about the Clinton Foundation and the missing money (d) Obama or Hillary’s medical records that were never released (e) transcripts of Hillary’s speeches to Wall Street backers. So the argument that they were trying to hack our election means the Russians either weren’t very good at it, or weren’t trying very hard. Which may be why most Americans (right after the election) believed Trump would have won, without the hacking. And that's polling those gullible enough to believe there was hacking. If you filtered for rational (non-DNC) Americans, or with what we know today, it would likely come out more in favor of Trump.[1]

Hacking definition

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. Comey was fired because after admitting that Trump had not colluded with the Russians, and our election had not been hacked, Comey wouldn't say so publicly.

    "There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There’s no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so, I‘d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." ~ Barack Obama (October 2016)

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. While throwing shade on Hillary, by telling the truth about her campaign, might be a Capital offense to the Democrats, but 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 the Russians did leak the truth about her, they did America a public service: assuming you want the elections to be based on full knowledge about the candidates. If getting the truth out there was a high crime, then leaking the tapes where Trump claimed he grabbed women and they like it, was a crime as well, should we go after that?

Vote Hacking

  1. The FBI looked into this, and claims there was nothing there.
  2. But if there was, there's no evidence they wanted Trump to win over Hillary.
  3. And the Democrats have been the party fighting AGAINST tightening our election controls (like VoterID) for decades.
  4. Obama himself resisted investigating Russians and hacking for 4-8 years despite pleas to tighten our election controls. It was only after they lost legitimately (and not even that close) that this suddenly mattered. And that was just a distraction to pretend they didn't lose.

So while there's no evidence this actually happened, if it did, it proves the Democrats incompetence on this topic all along.

The false narrative

After all this, 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. [2] Only these weren’t elite hackers, they were trollish kids, using very un-sophisticate techniques (not looking like State actors), that only hacked podesta's email, not the election. And the only thing they exposed was the truth about the Democrats actually trying to rig an election. [3]

So we know the media/left was willing to go along with any of the administration/DNC narrative about any excuse why "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.



Russiagate : 1995.06.14 Budyonnovsk hospital crisis2004.09.01 Beslan Massacre2016.06 Anthony Scaramucci2016.12.31 Russians hack our power grid2017 - 17 Intelligence Agencies2017.04.21 Carter Page Colluded with RussiaDNC-Russian CollusionHouse TranscriptsIG DOJ FBI ReportMemogateObama and HackersQ: Did Russia "influence" our elections?Q: Did the Russians want Donald Trump to win?Q: Is Collusion a crime?Q: Is Trump compromised by Russians?Q: Shouldn't we trust the Intelligence Agencies?Q: Was Trump wiretapped?Q: What about Helsinki?Q: What about Russian trolls, and Social Media?Q: What about the Podesta email hacks?Q: What is this Russia thing about?Q: What should we do about the Russian interference?Q: Who was the leadership during the Russiagate stuff?Q: Why did Russia interfere?Russia, Trump and WiretappingRussia: Mass MurdersRussiagate 🇷🇺Russian HackersRussian Hackers: The EvidenceRussian Hackers: The FictionRussian Psyops & AdsRussians ads swung the 2016 electionRussians buying ads on Facebook and that swung the electionSpygateTrump-Russia CollusionTrump: Hackers timelineTrump: Russian CollusionTrump: Russian Vote Hacking
Russiagate People : 2016 Obama, Hillary and the Russian "pee-pee" DossierAndrew McCabeDon Jr. HysteriaGeorge PapadopoulosJames ClapperJames ComeyLisa PageMichael FlynnPaul ManafortPeter StrzokRobert Mueller