Big Lie: Russia interfered with the U.S. Presidential election.

With respect to the emails of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, Her Presidential Campaign Chair, I am focused upon only: (1) the First Amendment; (2) the lack of integrity of "our" government and "our" media; and (3) the sheepleness and/or disinterest of many too easily-duped/led Americans. (None of us. Other Americans.) Therefore, this essay assumes that the Russian government ordered hacking of the computers of the DNC and Podesta. (BTW, FYI: Seth Rich's brother is trying to raise money to investigate the murder: https://www.gofundme.com/SethRich)

First, only the computer hacking was illegal: Although politicians and media have made more of this than of publishing instructions for making nuclear weapons on the internet, the information on the computers of the DNC and Podesta was not government information, let alone classified. Second, please keep separate (a) acquiring information illegally; and (b) making available to prospective U.S. voters accurate, non-classified, information about the election campaign of a candidate for POTUS. (BTW, Democrats have referred to the hacks themselves on MSNBC as an invasion of the U.S. by a foreign power and as an act of war, without contradiction or question from MSNBC personnel. After I started drafting this, Cheney chimed in to the same effect. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.)

Had Russia just sat on the information obtained by the hacking, no one could or would have claimed interference with an election. Although the PTB have been doing their best to blur and conflate issues, what politicians and media have been calling interference with a U.S. election is making available to prospective U.S. voters accurate, non-classified, information about the election campaign of a candidate for POTUS. This is political speech, which merits the highest level of First Amendment protection. (See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States)

Good grief! Is First Amendment protection of political speech headed for the same black hole as the Fourth Amendment? And no one pushes back against calling that interference with an election, not politicians, not media, not their audience! I cannot emphasize the following enough: RELEASING TO AMERICANS ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRIMARY AND/OR GENERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN OF A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS IS IN NO WAY INTERFERING WITH A U.S. ELECTION. RATHER, CLAIMING THAT RELEASING TO AMERICANS ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRIMARY AND/OR GENERAL CAMPAIGN OF A CANDIDATE FOR POTUS IS A "BIG LIE" THAT "OUR" GOVERNMENT AND "OUR" MEDIA HAVE BEEN TELLING US OVER AND OVER.

The principle is sometimes translated and abbreviated as the pithy saying: "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." {snip}

The phrase {the Big Lie} was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6]

"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)

Golly, why does all that seem so familiar?

In case anyone realized how bizarre the claim of the PTB is, President Obama asserted that releasing accurate information that disfavors only one candidate is what constitutes interference with a U.S. election. Really? Publishing information that disfavors only one side is the definition of interfering with a Presidential election? Then, every speech, every newspaper, magazine and internet article, every broadcast, every message board post, etc., praising or endorsing only one candidate interfered with the U.S. primary and general elections of 2016?

Yikes! That means most of the US belongs in prison, starting with establishment media. And what an ironic assertion, coming from the President whose administration put the final nail in the coffin of the fairness doctrine! (https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/1/how_the_media_iced_out_bernie; https://berniesanders.com/press-release/why-the-bernie-blackout-on-corpo... https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine )

Golly, if our government knew anything at all about collecting data from private individuals in foreign nations or about interfering in the internal affairs of foreign nations, it would never be saying such ludicrous things, would it? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-hi...) And, inasmuch as these claims of interfering with an election do both threaten First Amendment freedom and sound like resuscitating the fairness doctrine, why has "our" (snort) "watchdog media" been parroting these claims? Wouldn't we expect media to be challenging claims that either inhibit free speech or revive the fairness doctrine?

Meanwhile, the bi-partisan Big Lies disappeared Big Truths from the national conversation. Poof! One Big Truth is that Podesta is distasteful at best, "coincidentally," like many other Hillary campaign officials, surrogates and supporters, starting with Bubba and Mark Penn. (E.g. e.g., Halperin, Mark and Heilemann, John, Game Change, Harper Collins, New York 2010; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/10/game-change-bill-clinton-_n_417...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/hillary-supporter-cuomo-o_n_809... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillar... http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jun/11/backstory-behin... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-... http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2008/0...)

Another Big Truth is that a number of employees of the DNC (Dishonored National Committee) violated the charter of their employer and deceived and betrayed millions of Americans. Disgraced Debbie, Discredited Donna and every other DNC employee who participated in promoting Hillary over Senator Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary should have been fired the very day the emails became public.

Instead, only Sanders delegates prevented Disgraced Debbie from having her moment at the Democratic National Convention; and her "resignation" was announced simultaneously with her hiring by the Hillary campaign. Discredited Donna, of course, was elevated to Acting Chair of the DNC. Finally, Discredited Donna and the other DNC employees who violated their employer's charter remain employed. And none of the foregoing seems to bother "co-chairs" Tom Perez or Keith Ellison, even a little. ETA: When I posted this essay this morning, I may have spoken keyboarded too soon about Perez and Ellison, or not. We shall soon see. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/embattled-dnc-asks-all-staffer...

Summing up, the following are Big Lies:

1. Hacking a computer of a private U.S. person or organization is invasion of the United States by a foreign power and therefore an act of war.

2. Releasing truthful, but negative, information about the campaign of one candidate for POTUS equals interfering with a US election.

3. Nothing revealed by the emails of the DNC and Podesta is worth discussing for more than a minute and a half because Big Lies numbered 1 and 2, above, use up the oxygen in the room.

And, in conclusion, EEEEKKK! Russia! (P.S. The Fifties want their boogieyman back.)

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Outsourcing Is Treason's picture

When DWS resigned the DNC chair in disgrace after proof appeared that she cheated on behalf of Clinton, Clinton herself needed to abandon her fatally tainted candidacy and give the nomination to Bernie.

Instead, she invented the "Russian hackers" lie and proclaimed that this somehow magically shielded her from all accountability.

up
0 users have voted.

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

@Outsourcing Is Treason

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.

@Outsourcing Is Treason she shouldn't have brought DWS into her campaign. That was the moment where I realized they really and truly didn't give a shit about even appearing to be anything but what they were and the rest of Her campaign played out pretty much like I expected.

up
0 users have voted.

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Steven D's picture

Haven't you learned by now that free speech isn't really free?

Only those with money (or those paid with money to express the opinions of said money) are entitled to First amendment protections.

The rest of us can go huddle in our little free speech zones (the ones conveniently ignored by the "persons" with the money) and shout as loudly as we want. At least until they decide even that isn't permissible.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

@Steven D

outside (way outside) the 2004 Democratic National convention, in Boston, MA. It was underneath elevated subway tracks a couple of blocks from the convention center and it looked very much like a cage or pen.

When someone pointed it out to me, I could not believe my eyes.

up
0 users have voted.
Lily O Lady's picture

@HenryAWallace

zones."

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

up
0 users have voted.
Lily O Lady's picture

@HenryAWallace

"Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[3] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.[4]"

Sorry I can't do a link on my tablet. I was lucky to be able to copy the quote.

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

@Lily O Lady

The wiki says that the increase in free speech zones began with the WTO in Seattle in November 1999, which would have been a couple of months before Bush the Lesser's inauguration.

That something increased during a Presidency doesn't always mean that the President is the one who increased them, or the only one. For example, as I posted, the Democratic National Convention of 2004 occurred during Bush's Presidency, but Bush certainly was not responsible for Boston's free speech zone. (IIRC the Democratic National Convention of 2004 occurred before the Republican National Convention of 2004.)

The wiki also cites the 1988 Democratic National Convention as an example. Republicans often adopt something not great that Democrats started. Super delegates is another example. Plus, 911 occurred during Bush's first year in office and that may have influenced everyone.

(I am glad to see that the wiki did find the Boston Free Speech Cage as horrible as I did.)

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

ain't it, @HenryAWallace ?

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc

originated much earlier, but they did increase, starting in November 1999 with the WTO in Seattle. Whether responsibility for that lay with the Mayor and City Council of Seattle or the Clinton administration or with someone else, who knows?

They all seem follow the worst stuff anyone else does. As the essay showed (I hope), they even all seem to have adopted the Big Lie strategy that Hitler attributed to everyone but himself and that the US attributes to Hitler and Goebbels.

up
0 users have voted.
Wink's picture

@Lily O Lady
best at eliminating any non-Bushies at their 2000 and 2004 G. Dubya campaign events. If you didn't have the Bushie bonafides you didn't get anywhere near the event. Subsequently and consequently tv viewers saw only adoring fans. Kinda like the 2016 Dem Convention in Philly. Kudos to Berniecrat attendees for at least making an attempt to First Amendment the place, expose the horse$h!t.

up
0 users have voted.

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Lily O Lady's picture

@HenryAWallace

answer, "Based on what?"

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

@Lily O Lady

decided I should google because my own post had been based on nothing but personal recollection. I apologize if the change caused you a problem.

up
0 users have voted.
Lily O Lady's picture

@HenryAWallace

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Alligator Ed's picture

If this debate about Russian hacking were logical, here is how a modern Socrates (AKA Tucker Carlson) would elucidate the issue. It's fun to watch (9:10)

[video:https://youtu.be/0D7xmrfDLpI?t=3m44s]

up
0 users have voted.

@Alligator Ed

up
0 users have voted.
CB's picture

@HenryAWallace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D7xmrfDLpI
It's well worth the watch. Eric Swalwell is absolutely clueless about about how the sanctions have affected Russia. According to the World Bank, Russia's economy is far from "freefall". In fact, their economy has weathered the sanctions and fall in oil prices remarkably well. There have been no bubbles and their debt, both foreign and domestic is one of the lowest in the world. The Russian economy is expected to increase 1 to 2% in 2017.

Swalwell is just one more "no-nothing" embarrassment from the House of Representatives.

If anyone is interested in the current and future economic conditions of Russia, here are some non-political viewpoints:
Davos 2017 - Russia in the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGbGjjIWiGU

up
0 users have voted.

@CB

Maybe my internet was just malfunctioning or very slow earlier.

Whether Russians affected the outcome of the election or not is, for me, anyway, a slightly different issue than whether Russia "interfered with" a US election.

Many things can affect the outcome of an election, from weather to gasoline prices to how a war is going. We could as easily say that Comey's two unprecedented exonerations of Hillary "interfered" with the outcome of an election, or that Comey's announcing the re-opening of the investigation "interfered" with the outcome of an election. However, we don't say things like that. We say the information may have affected the outcome.

Actually, Comey's stuff was easier for Comey to rig. Russia )if indeed Russia was responsible) had no control over what the emails of the DNC and Podesta said.

I also don't know about cluelessness. I don't automatically impute either cluelessness or contrivance to people in government. However, when Cheney and Democrats are both referring to a computer hack an invasion of the US or an act of war, it seems too bizarre to be coincidental. Was it an act of war when we tapped Angele Merkel's private cell? After all, she was a German government official at the time. Podesta was not. Neither was Donna Brazile. (I happen to believe Merkel knew about her cell, but that is another story entirely. The official story was that she didn't know, so the US and Merkel are stuck with that version.)

ETA: Lest I be misunderstood, my goal in writing the essay was not to vindicate Russia or Putin, but only the three things I listed at the beginning of the essay. Accurate political speech does not = interfering with an election, no matter who publishes it. Dumping ballots or messing up voting machines, would be interfering with an election, no matter who did it. Russia did nothing like that (again, assuming it was indeed Russia).

up
0 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@HenryAWallace but repetition is good. Most people here (c99) already get that but repetition is good.

up
0 users have voted.

Kissinger and Bush; why not Cheney?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election could be "considered an act of war.”

Cheney, who served as President George W. Bush’s No. 2, spoke about Russia at The Economic Times’ Global Business Summit on Monday.

“There’s not any argument at this stage that somehow the election of President Trump was not legitimate, but there’s no question that there was a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin and his government, his organization, to interfere in major ways with our basic, fundamental democratic processes,” he said. “In some quarters, that would be considered an act of war.”

up
0 users have voted.

@gjohnsit

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace

Lol, including in their own elections?

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

@Ellen North

up
0 users have voted.

I haven't read all of your links yet, but this part from the wikipedia on the NYTimes/Pentagon Papers raises a big issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

The third possible approach was a very broad view of the First Amendment, one not focused on the impact of a government victory on the life of a democratic society if prior restraint were granted; but that the publication of just these sorts of materials—governmental misjudgments and misconducts of high import—is exactly why the First Amendment exists.

up
0 users have voted.

@Linda Wood

colonial Governor of New York appointed by King) is often cited as part of the back story of the First Amendment. However, the information in the DNC and Podesta emails was not government information, as were the Pentagon Papers.

The information in the emails was however, information that may have been very relevant to voters. In that respect, another case involving the New York Times--also decided before the NYT became the official newspaper of the U.S. government--is relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan Sullivan was a libel case, as was the Zenger case

So, in New York Times v. United States, the SCOTUS said that the First Amendment protects publishing even classified, government info.(Note: It probably does not protect the theft of the info, which was done by Ellsberg, but it did protect only the publication, which was done by the NYT after Ellsberg handed it the info.) Meanwhile, the emails did not even involve classified info.

And, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the SCOTUS overturned centuries of defamation law that had held that only 100% truth was a defense to a libel suit. New York Times v. Sullivan held that a publisher is not liable for libeling a politician unless the untruth about a politician was published out of actual malice: Information about politicians is too important to Americans to hold the publisher to a standard of 100% truth or even negligence. And the info involved in the emails was 100% accurate.

So both these cases protected much more than the info in the emails. Yet, both government and media tell us that publishing unaltered emails was interference with an election!

Thank you for the nice words about the essay.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

keeper.

Big Truths:

  • Profit > People
  • Big Corporate & the Oligarchs > Citizens
  • Banks > FED
  • Free Trade and Market Economy = Cheap Labor
  • America as Global Cop = Dirty Cop
  • Market Based Medicine = Extortion
  • Waste and Inefficiency = More Profits
up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc

up
0 users have voted.