Guardian piece with good points on Putin

I apologize if this piece has been posted already in the discussions, but I think it raises some basic, strong questions about the hysteria over the leaks, or hacks, or culprits.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/putin-trump-electi...

Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did
Doug Henwood
The Guardian
Tuesday 13 December 2016

The US political and media establishment is in a state of mounting frenzy over alleged Russian interference in the presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. The source of what has been called a “swell” of “circumstantial evidence” is the CIA, an agency which has been known to interfere with an election or two itself, and isn’t really a paragon of honesty.

And what exactly are the claims made by these Putin-did-it stories? That were it not for Russian chicanery, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by five million and not almost three million? That displaced machinists on the banks of Lake Erie were so incensed by the Podesta emails that they voted for Trump instead of Clinton? That Putin was pulling FBI director James Comey’s strings in his investigation of the Clinton emails? That those scheming Russians were clever enough to hack into voting machines but not clever enough to cover their tracks?

… Julian Assange denies that the Russian government was the source of the hacked emails to and from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that WikiLeaks published. Of course, there’s no way of knowing if he’s telling the truth – but regardless of their source, how much influence did they have on the election outcome?

We can never know, but it sure seems like only a handful of connoisseurs read through them. And those who did discovered precisely how cynical and empty the Clinton operation was, like the moment where campaign manager Robby Mook asks Podesta and several other senior operatives “where we landed exactly on trade. Is she going to say she supports it?” (“it” presumably being the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton supported as secretary of state but came to oppose for electoral reasons).

The displaced machinists in the industrial midwest, whose votes helped put sTrump in the White House, believe that free trade deals are responsible for their economic woes and they never trusted Clinton’s turn against the TPP. But that was Clinton’s campaign for you, bereft of principle and pathologically concerned with “optics” at the expense of substance.

It’s easy to blame the FBI for the trouble that the private email server scandal caused the Clinton campaign, but the decision to set that up was hers and no one else’s. It was entirely consistent with her long history of secrecy, of trying to evade public scrutiny for her actions, one of the reasons that so many people dislike her.

If a Sanders supporter in the DNC had leaked the Podesta emails, would all hell have broken out like this? If a Republican spy in the DNC had leaked them, would we be contemplating re-doing the election? I think the answer has to be yes. It seems the Democrats are saying no one had the right to expose the truth about them, the truth in their own words, to the voters in advance of the election.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

The Clintons, Obama, and the Democrats destroyed the Democratic Party.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

I made similar arguments here and to the TOP dead-Enders over the weekend. Summed it up in an update, an excerpt of which covers this too:

Blaming the Russians or James Comey or me for that loss is engaging in the most hopeless form of denial of the real problem: the Democratic party is at its weakest point in almost a century, thanks to the actions of its leadership over the last three decades.

up
0 users have voted.

Please help support caucus99percent!

Azazello's picture

I've been reading Henwood for a long, long time. He used to write about Wall Street, mostly, but he was horrified by the prospect of another Clinton presidency. This essay, Stop Hillary! in the October 2014 issue of Harper's was the basis for a scathing little book called My Turn which came out in 2015.

up
0 users have voted.

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

my omission of the link. I meant to include it and have edited it in.

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

My cat took one look and now I can't get him to come out from under the bed. If he doesn't come out by sundown, I'll lie to him and say Bernie won.

up
0 users have voted.
ZimInSeattle's picture

If one were to take a moment and think about what is being alleged here by Democrats — that a national presidential election was successfully subverted by the releasing of hacked emails showing major corruption and malfeasance by the Democratic Party leadership in undermining the fairness of the party’s presidential primary to benefit one candidate — Hillary Clinton — and to destroy the candidacy of her opponent Bernie Sanders — it should lead to one of two alternative conclusions.

Either the Russians did Americans a favor, by exposing the epic corruption of one of their two major parties and one of the candidates seeking to become president — something that a more independent and aggressive domestic media would have and should have done on their own, if not by hacking then by paying attention to, instead of ignoring and blacking out, what frustrated insiders like DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who quit in disgust saying the DNC was undermining the primaries on behalf of Clinton’s campaign. Or alternatively, we’re being told that our 240-year-old democracy is so shriveled and weak that an outside government can easily undermine it and manipulate the outcome as if we were some corrupt and fragile banana republic.

Either conclusion is rather pathetic and depressing to contemplate.

Bold added.

The Fake Campaign to Blame ‘the Russians’

up
0 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020

PriceRip's picture

          and this mornings offering from BoldProgressives.org:

Yesterday, 10 Electors demanded an intelligence briefing on Russian meddling in the Election. Now, that number has climbed to 40. According to Politico, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign are so concerned about the Electoral College vote on Monday, they are even monitoring Electors social media activity.

The bigger the crowds and media attention when Electors go to every state capitol on Monday Dec 19th to cast their votes, the better equipped they will be to do the right thing and do the will of the people -- and the more we'll debunk Trump's claim of a "mandate" after he lost the popular vote and was helped by Russia.

          Obviously the Russians are to blame! Sigh, will this ever end.

up
0 users have voted.
detroitmechworks's picture

They usually envision a mass movement of people with guns.

When the Neo-Liberals do it, they imagine a mass movement of lawyers with subpoenas.

up
0 users have voted.

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

CB's picture

This is exactly the situation that they've been saying they needed their guns for.

up
0 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

I can't keep up with what's been going on
I think my heart must just be slowing down
Among the human beings in their designer jeans
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled cries of lawyers in love

God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful
They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful
Eating from TV trays, tuned into to Happy Days
Waiting for World War III while Jesus slaves
To the mating calls of lawyers in love

Last night I watched the news from Washington, the capital
The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, like Russians will
Now we've got all this room, we've even got the moon
And I hear the U.S.S.R. will be open soon
As vacation land for lawyers in love

up
0 users have voted.
MarilynW's picture

machines as the article says. The hacks were made through phishing emails to individual Democrats. The intent appears to be to humiliate and embarrass the candidates and other Democrats like Podesta, by sending their emails to Wikileaks and having them published by a very willing media. They reveal nothing illegal but a lot of mean gossip, sniping and plotting. Nothing about actual voting machines.

I don't understand why so many don't believe there was any Russian involvement at all. Why do people reject this news completely just the way Trump does. The NYT investigation is pretty convincing. All hacking was done during daylight hours in Russia, only Democrats targeted and some Russian words appear in a sub-text format in documents and emails, (editing words where they altered documents).

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

MarilynW's picture

in Congress and in the presidential campaign, did enough damage to sway voters to either stay home or vote Trump is hard to assess. I wonder how much damage it did do.

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

How many tens of thousands of fishing emails are sent every single dam day out of Russia and eastern Europe?

up
0 users have voted.

Solidarity forever

up
0 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

That it was a leak from a DNC insider.

up
0 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

I appreciate the questions you're raising. Your point that nothing the DNC was doing was illegal I think is untrue. You say,

The hacks were made through phishing emails to individual Democrats... They reveal nothing illegal but a lot of mean gossip, sniping and plotting. Nothing about actual voting machines.

This article addresses that issue:

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-unde...

… Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary…

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

Over the past several weeks, Guccifer 2.0 released several internal memos showing DNC staff strategizing to make Clinton the presidential nominee—as early as March 2015. In June 2016, Florida-based law firm, Beck & Lee, filed a class action lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC based on the revelations from these leaked files.

Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report—corroborated by a Politico—revealed the DNC’s joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats.

I am a lifelong Democrat for the purpose of voting in the Primaries. During the entire past year I have received between 10 and 20 emails per day from the DNC and the DCCC asking me for money. If you raise money for an organization that has a charter defining how you can spend it, and you spend it wrongly, you have committed a fraud. And this fraud in particular does what the media are saying Putin did. It deprives the voters of their right to participate in an honest election.

The other issue you raise is this:

I don't understand why so many don't believe there was any Russian involvement at all. Why do people reject this news completely just the way Trump does.

It's taken me this long to respond to your question because I wanted to make sure I read the whole David Sanger article at the NY Times asserting the CIA conclusion. And I watched David Sanger talk about it with Charlie Rose on my computer, the beauty of which is that you can stop, go back, and make sure you heard what Sanger said, exactly. My life experience is that the CIA lies, a lot, about war. And that's what this crisis is about. What I heard and read in the article and the interview were weasel words, qualifiers, and suggestions that Russia committed the hacks, but no definitive statements. When Charlie Rose pressed Sanger on that problem, Sanger eventually said that the CIA and President Obama can't come right out and declare that the Russians did it because to do so would reveal sources and methods and also put the administration in a position of having to respond in some way, presumably by sanctions, the enforcement of which would require other countries to see the evidence or proof, which would again reveal sources and methods.

So from my point of view, all of what the CIA is saying may be true. Or it may be false. But what is clear to me is that whoever released this information to the American people revealed the truth about the Democratic Party to its members and to the voters, and that was a good thing.

up
0 users have voted.

Same as many the right wing nutcases, when you wont/cant change

Make up a conspiracy theory to justify being plain old pig headed.

up
0 users have voted.