Russian Hackers

There's scant evidence that the Russians were behind DNC (Podesta) email hacks, and certainly not the leak to Wikileaks. 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. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2018-04-21

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? ❞ ~ Vladimir Putin ℹ️ When asked about hacking the election

What happened

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.

Russian Hackers: The Fiction

           Main article: Russian Hackers: The Fiction

Russian Hackers: no evidence of hack, no reason for it, no evidence they prefer Trump to Hillary, no evidence that the voters who voted for Trump (or against Hillary) did so because of the information that was in the alleged hack, if getting the truth out "manipulated the election" then more of that please, and most believe Trump would have won without the hacking.

Russian Hackers: The Evidence

           Main article: Russian Hackers: The Evidence

The media had a record of disinformation, false information or lies about Trump. This didn't change with "Russian Hackers". The evidence released that Russian Hackers stole Podesta's email and gave it to WikiLeaks was sketchy at best. That doesn't mean it did or did not. It means that you're a rube if you believe it without question, or think the evidence was conclusive.

Context

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: didn’t see 9/11 coming that empowered the "Bush lied" falsehood with “WMD’s were a slam dunk” who was wrong on ISIS/Caliphate and said it was, "unfathomable to think ISIS could establish a caliphate in the Middle East”, and Obama confirmed later that, "ISIS was not on my intelligence radar screens” while pulling us out of Iraq (and enabling them to get a toehold) the same CIA director that helped in draft the ill-fated Benghazi talking points (that the attack was a “spontaneous — not a premeditated” protest). These are the folks the media/Hillary Supporters were suddenly telling us to believe, while they were illegally leaking stories about Russians that no one would officially stand behind? And ignore the other intelligence agencies and evidence that disagrees?

• 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.

Obama and Hackers

           Main article: Obama and Hackers

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. Cynics/realists might think that was to sabotage relations.

Trump: Hackers timeline

           Main article: Trump: Hackers timeline

The summary and timeline of the Russian Hacker invention is the following: The media claims that Russians did the Hillary hack... NSA Whistleblower agrees with Assange that it was an inside leak. "Grizzley Steppe” — codename for the FBI investigation admits the hack was caused by a 2015 phishing campaig.

---

🔗 More

Democratic National Committee Historically on the wrong side of almost every issue, while lectured the public on their moral superiority.

TBD List all the articles that have work to be done on them.

Donald Trump A list of articles on Trump, his accomplishments, scandals (real and imagined).

Russia Russia, our friendly comrades that hate us for our power, freedom, and annoying ability to stick our noses in all kinds of shit.

Hillary Clinton Hillary's scandals that the media ignored or diluted, but defined her, them and her supporters. They were OK with all of this.

Gaslighting Gaslighting is psychological cruelty where one sows doubt by manipulating others into questioning their own memory and sanity.

🔗 Links

• https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true
• 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
• https://www.longroom.com/discussion/707802/is-any-part-of-the-russia-election-hacking-story-true

Tags: DNC  TBD  Trump  Russia  Hillary  Gaslighting