Russian Hackers: The Fiction

The Fiction

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.
  • List of examples: Hillary was more bribable and blackmail-able , got Russians access to American Uranium deposits , While Trump is the stronger negotiator, larger and more masculine (Putin is into imagery), he had hawkish/strong, and made anti-Russia statements and picks like Mattis and Bolton. The only reason they might have wanted to attack Hillary was retaliation since she, Obama and the Democrats had interfered with the Russia and many other countries elections first, but the media has mostly avoided covering that angle in this scandal because it cedes the non-existent moral high ground.
  • Not to mention the only recent evidence we have of anyone directly trying to tamper with an American election, was during the Cold War when Democrat Icon Teddy Kennedy went to Russia and begged them to help obstruct our election or Ronald Reagan might win.. Or, of course, before that when Democrats under FDR conspired with British Intelligence to create disinformation campaigns about Republican opponents . But trust the Democrats this time, they'd never lie to the public for political gains.
• (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
  • 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. No one has showed a tie about how the wikileaks info really mattered. By the time they came out, most people had already decided against Hillary.
• (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. Imagine if the following had been hacked and released:
  • Obama’s college transcripts
  • the 30,000 missing Clinton emails
  • information about the Clinton Foundation and the missing money
  • Obama or Hillary’s medical records that were never released
  • transcripts of Hillary’s speeches
• (g) most Americans believe Trump would have won without the hacking