Russia Hacked our Election! (So what?)

Scott Adams' Blog ^ | June 13, 2017 | Scott Adams

[2ndDivisionVet]

I see a consensus forming that Russia attempted to influence our election with fake news and other social media shenanigans.

But why?

If you start with the assumption that Russia is an enemy of the United States, you probably assume they do bad things to us simply to weaken our power and effectiveness. For example, this article hypothesizes that Russia’s intention was to breed distrust between whoever became president and our intelligence services. I guess that hypothesis sort-of-almost makes sense. But I wouldn’t say it passes my personal sniff test.

Then there’s the more popular theory that the Russians were colluding with the Trump campaign because Putin thought he could somehow control President Trump via blackmail, or business ties, or something else we’re imagining. I guess that could be true. Sort of. But that doesn’t pass my sniff test either.

Then there’s the hypothesis that Russia was messing with our democratic system to weaken the country by sowing distrust about the election process, or possibly by electing a president they believed would be less effective. But I have a hard time believing the Russians thought Trump would be ineffective. Maybe they just thought he would be divisive, and perhaps they thought that’s good for Russia in some way.

I suppose any one of the versions of reality I described could be true. But my brain has to work hard to make sense of any of those explanations. The pieces fit, but only when I hammer them. That raises a red flag for confirmation bias.

Just for fun, let’s compare the standard explanations for Russia’s alleged influence on the election with two other hypotheses.

Hackers and Misdirection

As Putin accurately pointed out in a recent interview, hackers can make their attacks seem to come from other sources, including Russia. I assume there are hundreds, if not thousands, of Trump-supporting Americans with the skills to hack poorly-secured servers. Even if you assume Putin wanted to hack American servers, he would have needed to get in line to do it. Given all the American hackers who opposed Hillary Clinton, there is perhaps a one-in-a-hundred chance Putin’s hackers (if they exist) got to the DNC and Clinton’s servers before the hordes of non-Russian hackers did it. So even if Putin tried, the odds are low that his team got to the good stuff first.

But that’s just the hacking allegation. The “influence” goes further than that, including fake news and other social media shenanigans.

Fake News and Social Media Shenanigans

Let’s say Russia did attempt to influence American voters to support Trump. The first question I have to ask is this: Aren’t all the big countries trying to influence elections in all the other countries, all the time? If Russia did try to influence an American election, wouldn’t that be business as usual? Do we imagine the United States is NOT trying to influence foreign elections through our own fake news and social media manipulations? I always assumed we do that sort of thing. I base that assumption on the following observation about human beings:

If the payoff for bad behavior is high, and the odds of getting caught and punished are low, bad behavior happens every time.

That describes the situation with influencing foreign elections. The payoff is high (potentially) and one assumes the major intelligence agencies know how to avoid getting fingered. Whenever you have this sort of situation, you always have mischief.

But let’s get back to Russia’s presumed payoff for somehow destabilizing the United States. I think we need to check that assumption because Putin seems like a smart guy. It’s hard for me to believe he thinks he would come out ahead by destabilizing the world’s most important military and economic power. And that is doubly true when you are teaming with that country to fight ISIS, put a cap on North Korea, and keep the economy chugging along. It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in 2017 in which Russia gains by poking America with a sharp stick. The probable outcome seems more bad than good. Who wants a pissed-off nuclear superpower looking in your direction? It doesn’t pass the sniff test. If Putin were an idiot, I could see him wanting to cause this sort of trouble just because he was dumb.

Putin isn’t dumb.

Global Democracy Hypothesis

I’d like to introduce a new hypothesis to explain why Russia might have wanted to influence American elections: They believed a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster to the world, including Russia.

We’ve been brainwashed by the media and our own government to believe Russia always acts against our interests. I think it would be more accurate to assume Russia always acts in its own best interest, and that can sometimes be in conflict with our interests.

But not always.

There is no rule that says Russia’s best interests have to diverge from America’s. For example, both countries want to defeat ISIS. Both countries prefer a non-nuclear North Korea. Both countries prefer robust trade. And so on.

As a thought experiment, imagine the United States watching some other country’s election process while believing one of the main candidates would be a disaster for the world, including the United States. Would our intelligence services try to influence that election, even if it was a NATO country?

Of course they would. At least I hope so.

But something much larger than government-on-government influence is happening, and I’d like to call that out in this post. We keep talking about physical border security, but what about influence security? Any country with widespread Internet access is susceptible to the same kind of fake news and other social media influence that we suspect Russia of doing. And every citizen can play this game. For example, if I were highly motivated to influence an election in Great Britain, I’m sure I could move a few thousand votes in any direction I chose. Could it be said in that case that America is trying to manipulate a foreign election? Yes, unambiguously so. And I believe it is totally legal, even if I use fake news as my persuasion.

From 2017 onward, the democratic process in any country is open to “voting” by the entire world. The foreign “votes” will come in the form of social media influence on the local voters. There is no practical way to stop any of that from happening. And that means political power will migrate from the traditional triumvirate of politicians, rich people, and the media, to individual persuaders who are good at it. In 2017 and beyond, the best persuaders in the world will be influencing democratic elections in every country. And those persuaders will be from anywhere on the globe. Borders can’t stop persuasion.

While you were watching the news coverage about physical borders between countries, and physical immigration, the democratic process in each country became global. We can (and do) influence politics across borders now, bigly. And fake news is part of the soup, unfortunately.

Did Putin or other Russian nationals try to influence American elections? I assume so. I also assume America has done the same – in terms of influence on their local politics – to Russia, and to every one of our allies.

And if we aren’t doing that sort of thing, why the hell not? Voting is open across borders now. We would be wise to vote in those other countries. That’s what Russia did. Allegedly.

[Slyfox]

The video that I posted came out just after the event, which I think was in October of 2016. And, I do remember the media really slamming Matt Lauer for his not being nice to Hitlary.

So glad Donald Trump won the election.

[Yosemitest]

Ancesthntr's comment has a lot of logic to it.
Your's has NO named sources and only speculation.
Now let's review a few pieces of history, such as:

CBS NEWS on December 12, 2016, John Bolton says claims of Russian hacking could be "false flag" operation

MotherBoard.Vice.com on Oct 12 2016, How Hackers Plant False Flags to Hide Their Real Identities

Politico on Dec 11 2016 Bolton: Russian hacks could actually have been by Obama administration

National Review on Nov 1 2016 The Clinton E-mails Are Critical to the Clinton Foundation Investigation

The Rush Limbaugh Show on Jun 13, 2017 We Have Evidence That Loretta Lynch Obstructed Justice

NewsMax on May 31 2017 Debbie Wasserman Schultz Admits She Violated Information Security Policy 'For Years'

Politico on Mar 1 2017 House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation

The Daily Caller on Mar 4 2017 EXCLUSIVE: House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members Compromised By Rogue IT Staff

Now based on the articles linked above, I propose to you that it is VERY POSSIBLE AND CREDIBLE

that the Democratic National Committee,
under the direction of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF,
hired Amid Awan, Jamal Awan, Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas
to hack those computers,
and to place false flags to make it look as if the Russians did the hacking.

On the other side of the issue is:

The Glenn Beck Program on Jun 13, 2017 EXCLUSIVE: Jim DeMint Weighs in on Russia and His New Role at Convention of States

Bloomberg.Com on June 13, 2017 Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known

Schneier on Security on Jun 9 2017 NSA Document Outlining Russian Attempts to Hack Voter Rolls

TheIntercept.Com on June 5 2017


TOP-SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION

Now, I trust former Senator Jim DeMint, and I trust Rush and Glenn.
But all former Senator Jim DeMint has is the document he was shown and briefed upon, and they came from a corrupted agency under Obama and his minions.

In closing, let me make it clear that

I strongly believe that document and other sources were generated by Amid Awan, Jamal Awan, Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas, while they were working for he Democratic National Committee, under the direction of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF .

[Yosemitest]

Be sure to read Comment #22 and let me know what you think of those links and what I stated.

[BlueDragon]

The video that I posted came out just after the event, which I think was in October of 2016.

I'm unsure of what "event" precisely you've mentioned, and need confess here that I went to the video, but did not watch but a minute or two, thinking I'd seen it before.

I'd been under the impression that the "we'll all hang" comment came about during an election night meltdown. That's looking like it was mistake on my part. Thank you for the note of clarification.

I'll look again at the video, and search out the quote itself, in hope of seeing better what you are saying here.

Regardless, if the info is accurate, I would like to see it come bobbing up to the surface, like an iceberg that was stuck on the bottom of the ocean, but once free of anchoring constraint --- woops! there it is! Wouldn't that be nice?

It in the least it would entertaining watching lamestream drive-by media types squirm in their seats when trying to melt the iceberg with their tiny little torches held up like lit cigarette lighters at a rock concert (that had some really bad music coming from center stage!)

And, I do remember the media really slamming Matt Lauer for his not being nice to Hitlary.

That was not exactly tied to the "if he's elected 2we'll all hang comment was it? But for other criticisms, I seem to recall. It does set me to thinking though...Matt...could maybe enjoy having something break (that he could hammer home upon, just a bit) to vindicate himself, and silence the chattering-class, know-it-all lefty critics? He'd like to be able to sit, and glare at them? hehhehh (that's deliciously evil, I admit it!)

So glad Donald Trump won the election.

Yes, thank God for answered prayers. I don't care how "imperfect" the man is. Perfect is too much to ask from any human. Jesus is a tough guy to have to follow?

Trump has been doing just fine, as far as I'm concerned. Just look at what he's had to deal with. People. Wherever you have people, you're going to have problems. And boy howdy, they've been huckin' 'em at his head from BEFORE Day One.

[Ancesthntr]

I can see your point but I disagree. The world under Obama was stable in the sense that it was a slow and gradual decline of US influence. A Clinton presidency would have been a continuation of the same. Believe me, Putin and the Russian ruling class are fully capable of doing very well in such an environment. Just remember that the Soviets were very able to exploit American weakness in the mid-to-late 1970s. In an environment of continued American weakness, Putin would have continued his life’s mission of reassembling the old Soviet Empire. Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries would be next after Ukraine was re-digested.

[Yaelle]

Oh, I agree. There was no interference with our election.

I did speak with a couple people who are into the slightly deeper web in hacking situations, who were telling me that the kind of rooms we saw in this last season of homeland, where people sitting at hundreds of computers are paid to create fake social media individuals who push an agenda on social media and in chat rooms, do exist. They CAN exist anywhere, even in Russia.

Nothingburger. Anyone can go online and say anything. That does not constitute INTERFERENCE in an election. ANYONE is allowed to say what they want. The President of Country X can stand up at his podium and announce that Country X hopes Trump will win!

I was being tongue in cheek - really, that info from the hacker is the only thing I have heard EVER about how Russia might have attempted any influence in our election at all, and it is not collusion or illegal or really even wrong.

(Between you and me, I don’t even think Putin felt he NEEDED to interfere with our election. He already had the goods on Hill. And he knew Trump would be more straightforward and easier to work with than the slimy Obama who had to answer to his Muslim owners.)

[Slyfox]

There were two events. The one we saw on TV where both Hillary and Trump spoke for a half hour each questioned by Matt Lauer in October before the election - and the one the people backstage witnessed where Hillary became unglued because Matt asked her questions forcing her to free wheel her answers that were not on script. Hillary was pissed because she was not being soft-balled as she had prepared.

In the "ungluing" backstage, Hillary reamed Donna Brazille and then followed it up, it seems, later with a personal email. The people backstage were all assistants to Hillary and NBC media types because they were covering the townhall. What the video portrays is the collective disgust they had for Hillary as they saw her have a melt-down hissyfit. She did this in front of her own supporters in the media. If they had any allusions to her perfectness that was all shattered when they saw the real Hillary.

The media has propped Hitlary up for so long and now that it is all unraveling they are having to cover their backsides.

In the Bible, I think it is in Proverbs or something, there is an image of an ostrich who lays eggs and is not careful of her brood as she steps on them breaking their yolks. That reminds me of her. Her toadies in the media have been doing everything they can think of to prop her up, but she just stomps on them not thinking about how she might be destroying them.

[Yosemitest]

"... There was no interference with our election.

... Nothingburger. "

I DISAGREE !

I strongly believe that document and other sources were generated by Amid Awan, Jamal Awan, Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas,
while they were working for the Democratic National Committee, under the direction of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF .

The interference was FROM the Democratic National Committee, even if it was NOT EFFECTIVE.

We must CONFISCATE the Democratic National Committee's COMPUTER SERVERS and have them analyzed in detail.
The evidence is IN THOSE COMPUTERS !

[Yosemitest]

"... There was no interference with our election.

... Nothingburger. "

I DISAGREE !

I strongly believe that document and other sources were generated by Amid Awan, Jamal Awan, Imran Awan, and Rao Abbas,
while they were working for the Democratic National Committee, under the direction of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the ILLEGAL ALIEN IN CHIEF .

The interference was FROM the Democratic National Committee, even if it was NOT EFFECTIVE.

We must CONFISCATE the Democratic National Committee's COMPUTER SERVERS and have them analyzed in detail.
The evidence is IN THOSE COMPUTERS !

[BlueDragon]

Thank you again, and I apologize for having been so slow on the uptake, resulting in myself having needlessly been a bother.

After going to the vid you'd initially supplied link to, yes, your explanation is how it was. Again, I apologize for having caused you the trouble of writing it all out.

You included in explanation mentioning;

"...Hillary reamed Donna Brazille and then followed it up, it seems, later with a personal email."

I'd missed the follow-up email part-- unless it was more along lines of being just a claim? Too tired I suppose, and still haven't slept but about an hour since yesterday -- but wanted to thank you, so started typing...

I did catch how Bill Still claimed to have gotten an email that had t.v. network return address, that went into some detail, including Hillary telling Brazile she just stood there "like a stupid cow" and had to do something to "fix this" etc.

If there actually was follow-up letter from Hildabeast (or Hildabest headquarters, be that as however it may --DNC or else more directly 'Her Beastness's campaign) to Brazil, I'd sure like to see a source- verified copy of that. The better to bonk them all, and in their darkness bind them with.

Lacking that, there may be network personnel who will come forward? We here on FR are hip to how Her Herness operated --- tried to get Lauer fired, pressuring NYT and Washington Wash-bag to join in with and support the pressuring letters her campaign sent to the network. Other Dhimmi Party dim-bulbs across portions of media spectrum fell in line immediately, and did join in with the down-with-Matt-Lauer he committed unpardonable sin screeching. That in itself is a story which could stand re-telling -- to the Dhimmi Party dim-bulb faithful. When it's presented as part of a larger arch of Her Herness' loose commitment to truth, coupled with habitual Hildabeast imperious attitude -- it can be more easily understood why she lost to a guy like Donald Trump. The Beast-er [here beginning at at 1:28 runtime mark];

"...Now having said all this, why aren't I fifty points ahead you might ask..."

I still think the Demo'Rat Party (on super-secret and sly levels) cooed at, flattered and encouraged Trump to throw his hat into the ring in the first place. He took them up on it, and played for keeps. Surprise, surprise, surprise Sgt. Carter.

They thought he'd be an easy target, a target that could be used to ridicule the GOP while Trump stirred up "stuff", figuring if Trump were to somehow pull it off, and win the nomination (the media DID appear to be helping Trump win the GOP nomination, didn't they, more than just a little -- Trump was their favorite -- for Hildabeast to run against in the general) then at some point Her Herness would be FIFTY POINTS AHEAD.

It did not go as planned schemed. She FUBAR'd. Too much junk in the trunk. Before the polls closed -- it was the Russians. Of course you know all of that latter part, even if not agreeing with the former guessing at things I'm indulging myself in, I'm sure.

Her toadies in the media have been doing everything they can think of to prop her up, but she just stomps on them not thinking about how she might be destroying them.

I hardly ever watch network t.v. of any kind, but I'm aware of some of the genre. What I'd like to see is a new series, starring those who she stomped on but did not manage to fully kill - and then they grew up;

Survivor Political Style: The Revenge

Let's have our common enemies turn one upon the other (even more than they've already been sliding towards doing, a little here and there).

Dear God in Heaven --- can this be made to be? If this is a bad prayer, please, lead me to pray better in regard to this particular subject. But I do again thank you for how much so far it does seem to me that you've answered my own prayers ---that their attacks against Trump would be their own collective (no pun intended!) downfall.

[Slyfox]

You are no bother.

I think a lot of what was found out was discovered on Wikileaks.

If Mueller really wants to do his job right he needs to go through Wikileaks.

[Yosemitest]

"Let's have our common enemies turn one upon the other (even more than they've already been sliding towards doing, a little here and there).

Dear God in Heaven --- can this be made to be? ... "

Sapphira, be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it.
We don't want to get caught up in the crossfire.