Friday, March 24, 2017

Was The Russian Email Hack of the DNC and Clinton Campaign a Threat to Democracy Or Did It Expose One?

The New York Times front page  above tells an important story but not the one the Times hoped to tell. It tells a story of media collusion with the Clinton campaign and the DNC that was and is and has been the real threat to democracy.

When was the last time anyone saw a banner headline in the New York Times  that was simply reporting what another news organization was reporting?

The answer is never.

And what were they reporting? That a number of anonymous super delegates called the AP in the middle of the night, no doubt at the behest of Debby Wasserman-Schultz, the night before the crucial Democratic California primary, the last big piece in a primary battle where Bernie Sanders had already won 23 states and by landslide numbers, to say they would vote for Hillary Clinton at the Democratic convention to give her enough super delegate votes to win the nomination. Even though those anonymous "declarations" at the time didnt actually count as votes and there was no guarantee they ever would. 

The message to Sanders voters was clear: don't bother to show up tomorrow.No reason to vote. You have no chance so stay home. It's all over. Because we say it is. 

It was not just dishonest and untrue for many reasons its distinct purpose was to undermine our democracy and the single most important component of it -- the vote -- for the benefit of Hillary Clinton helped by a cabal of news organizations who for their own purposes were in on the collusion. Everything Democrats, without any proof or evidence tried to claim, so far with no success, occurred between the Trump campaign and Russia.

  It was the Democrats', the DNC, Clinton campaign and news media colluding to pull off a Putsch --  a German word for the kind of middle of the night power grab that happened in Germany in the 1930's --  to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and supress the vote for Bernie Sanders with the help of a dishonest news media, the DNC and its unethical use of super delegates which the media also aided and abetted. Unethical because never in the history of the Democratic party has even one super delegate ever voiced a preference before the last primary was over, yet they began announcing preferences to selected media outlets anonymously  back in February which were intentionally included and counted by those media outlets as one total along with pledged delegate totals to try to blunt the effect of landslide victories over Clinton by Sanders.

The news media outlets like CNN and MSNBCm included those "declarations" without even verifying them and simply added them to the pledge delegates won in primaries, the only delegates that actually counted at the time, even though super delegates hadnt voted to decide a nominee in 32 years. It was all designed to help rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton with the help of a dishonest, almost Pravda-like news media. They succeeded when it came to the nomination. They tried it in the general election and failed.

After the election, the Democrats refrain or excuse, was that somehow the Russian email hack and subsequent  publishing of those emails by Wikileaks which exposed all that fraud, rigging,deceit and collusion between the DNC,Clinton and her campaign and many in the mass media was the reason Clinton lost as if the issue was who exposed it instead of what was exposed.

While the consensus of the intelligence agencies said that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails, then turned them over to Wikileaks, what Adam Schiff, the Democrats' spin merchant on the Intelligence Committee whose job is to put out the Democrats predetermined strategy via talking points always tries to bury by using over-generalized and even blatantly false language like "the Russian hack of the election" (they didnt "hack" the election which insinuates hacking actual vote) is that it was the content of those emails and the truth it exposed that was damaging to the DNC and Clinton not who exposed it. It was what the Russians found when they hacked those emails that was damaging, not that it was the Russians uncovered it.

Any damage to Democrats, the DNC and the Clinton campaign as a result of those emails being made public was damage they did to themselves because of  what those emails contained, not who exposed them.

And what was exposed was a vipers nest of lies, fraud and deceit in trying to undermine our democratic process and elections in collusion with many major media organizations like CNN and MSNBC, first to take down Bernie Sanders and then do the same in the general election. Trying to put the focus on the Russians for  exposing  emails showing Debby Wasserman-Schultz lying about her role and DNC collusion, doing everything she can to help rig the nomination for Clinton, Donna Brazile lying about feeding CNN presidential debate questions in advance to Clinton,emails and transcripts exposing  Clinton saying one thing privately and another publicly and Democratic super delegates colluding to rig the nomination and suppress both Sanders vote and fund raising ability with the help of  the already outed news outlets, that is what damaged Clinton and the Democrats. 

Though using the word "damage"as Democrats do to apply to Clinton who began with the worst unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in history as far back as January, 2016 before a single vote was cast is disingenuous. "Further damaged" is more honest and more to the point for a candidate who  polls showed 65% of the American people believed was dishonest and untrustworthy.

Yes the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and you don't have to be an FBI or CIA analyst to know what happened next. Their eyes lit up. They saw  a treasure trove of political lying,fraud, rigging and collusion trying to undermine our democratic process from outright lying, deceit and fraud, to Glenn Thrush's infamous email to Podesta offering him approval of a piece he was writing on Clinton for Politico that began, " I know Im a hack".

Did the Russians know the emails would be damaging to Hillary Clinton? Obviously. But the other false premise Democrats try to push to both save face and continue the same deceit they were engaged in that was already exposed, is that it was done specifically to help Trump. The argument is preposterous on many levels.

First, given there were 20,000  emails from the DNC alone and that the Russians would have had to read them first and then give them to Wikileaks who would also have to read them and  authenticate them, and given when they were released, days before the Democratic National convention ( timing the Russians had no control over) the timeline indicates the hack of the DNC first occurred sometime in February but  no later than March,at least 4 months before Trump won the nomination. At the time of the first Russian hack most people including Republicans and almost every media outlet were mocking the idea that Trump was even running. So the entire process of hacking the 20,000 DNC emails  and Podesta's 20,000+ emails  had to have begun before anyone could have known Trump would be the nominee.

 Damage Clinton for the sake of damaging her because the emails themselves were damaging? Obviously. Damage Clinton because they could? Yes. But to help Trump win because they wanted Trump? Ridiculous.

While hacking those emails were certainly illegal it was a lot like a burglar breaking into a home where he clearly didnt belong and clearly committing  a criminal act by even being there, but found a man beating his wife and reported it to the police. Then having the man complain the burglar calling the police was interfering in his marriage and everything he saw needs to be ignored because he's a criminal who had no business being in his house. The Russians were indeed criminals who broke into those email accounts but what they found was the DNC,Clinton campaign and a colluding news media committing domestic political and electoral abuse. Democrats want everyone to ignore that and focus on the criminal who exposed it.

Democrats and their allies have been trying to deflect those facts with dishonest, distorted and overly exaggerated language like calling the email hack "a Russian attack on our democratic institutions".

Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign were not "one of our democratic institutions". But it certainly sounds more sinister than "the Russian hack of the DNC and John Podesta emails".

People like playing the "imagine if the roles were reversed" game and often its a good way to get to the truth and expose whats real and who the hypocrites are. And if the roles were reversed and an email hack by any foreign government, or even domestically, exposed the kind of lies, deceit, fraud, collusion and the rigging of the democratic nominating and election process  by the GOP to help for the Trump campaign despite public statements to the contrary and in collusion with friendly but corrupt media outlets trying to help rig the general election for Trump,one can imagine Democrats on CNN and MSNBC, while admitting the hack illegal, praising the exposure as helping to save the democratic process  and something the country can be grateful for.

Had those DNC  and Clinton campaign emails revealed paragons of honesty and truth protecting our democratic ideals and processes, had they shown Clinton and Democrats to be pillars of integrity instead of what they did show, the Russians would have been bitterly disappointed.  What they found didn't disappoint.

One further point regarding the continued false idea that the email hack was to benefit Trump as opposed to only damage Clinton, as if Trump were some kind of Manchurian,or Kremlin candidate:  the first batch of DNC emails were exposed before the Democratic nominating convention and after a  contentious primary season that saw Sanders beat Clinton by landslide margins in many states winning 23 states and tying in 2 more. Making the state victory totals even. The result of those primaries was that Clinton did not have enough delegates won in primary elections to win the nomination going into the convention and would have to rely on super delegates whose previous "declarations" officially meant nothing,  to get her over the top.

 Those DNC emails which revealed the deceit, dishonesty and collusion by the DNC and Clinton campaign to damage Bernie Sanders and rig the nomination for Clinton,including outright lying and duplicity by Debby Wasserman-Schultz who was forced to resign as DNC Chair, was all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders the candidate every poll showed was the candidate most likely to beat Trump,in some polls by as many as 15 points. Those emails helped fuel massive protests at the convention against Clinton and on behalf of Sanders days before the roll call vote.

So the idea that the hack of the DNC emails and their release were somehow a Russian desire to help Trump win as opposed to just damaging Clinton when they actually benefitted the Democratic candidate most likely to beat Trump, is not just absurd, its stupid.

What damaged Hillary Clinton the most wasnt the Russians, it was Hillary Clinton.

 Whether it was the State Department Inspector General issuing a report during the primaries that concluded Clinton had publicly and repeatedly lied  for two years about her unauthorized private server being "allowed" or "approved" when it hadnt been, or the FBI criminal investigation that concluded she was sloppy, negligent, irresponsible and careless with classified information by using that server which she did for her own benefit, or the 30,000 emails ordered destroyed, or  many other things including what the hacked emails exposed, what did the most damage to Hillary Clinton was Hillary Clinton not the Russians. 

That the Democrats would rig a nomination for a candidate with the highest unfavorable rating in history, the lowest favorables, and a candidate who 65% said was dishonest and untrustworthy is something Democrats cant blame on the Russians. It has more in common with Groucho Marx than Karl Marx.

In an answer to a question by Rep (D) Denny Heck of Washington State during the House Intelligence Committee hearings who as part of his question self righteously insisted that Democratic persistence in exploring unproven ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as "evidenced" by the email hack was not political but patriotic, Director of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers said that what is most important and inherent to democracy is to preserve the choice of the voters. He was right.

To that end Rep. Heck who comes from a state whose voters in the Democratic primary voted for Bernie Sanders to be the nominee 80-20 over Hillary Clinton but as a super delegate voted for Hillary Clinton to tow the party line, as did all super delegates in states Sanders won, did more to undermine our democratic processes and institutions by not preserving  the choice of the voters than Vladimir Putin and the Russians could ever do.

The Democrats continuing the charade of blaming Clinton's loss on "Russia interfering with our democratic process" because the emails exposed Clinton, Democrats and the news media interfering with our democratic process, belongs in a George Orwell novel or a Marx Brothers movie. 

The Democrats on the Intelligence Committee are not doing this to save our democracy or democratic process they're doing it to save face.  Even if it means continuing to undermine the same democratic principles they profess to champion.