Where the intelligence assessment of the Russian hacks goes off the rails

streiff:
...
From there, the assessment makes a flying leap of logic here that is either a function of the crappiest editing of a political document in modern history, dunderheaded stupidity, or partisan duplicity. While there is no, zero, evidence pointing to the Russians aiding Trump, there is some pointing at the Russians trying to hurt Clinton.

To get at motives it is best to look at actions. Otherwise, you become Barack Obama designating a shooting as ‘workplace violence’ because you ignored the screams of Allahu Akbar.

The first question is how did hacking and releasing the DNC emails and Podesta emails really hurt Clinton? As I pointed out in mid-December, there is not evidence that indicates these events had any impact whatsoever on the campaign. Clinton pulled out to a big lead in the public opinion polls right after Wikileaks released the DNC emails and Trump didn’t begin to close the gap until early September. Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating improved after the Podesta emails were leaked and she maintained a large lead over Trump in favorability through the last polls. And Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. So if the intent was really to hurt Hillary with the American electorate, this was a spectacular failure.

The second bullet is also total bullsh**. THERE WAS NEVER A POINT IN THE ELECTION CYCLE WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS NOT THE FRONTRUNNER. Therefore, the Russians expected, from Day One, that Hillary Clinton was going to win. They didn’t suddenly see she was winning and leap into action....
...
Hacking the DNC emails. First, the coverage of these emails was very superficial outside of highly partisan sites like this one. Did middle America run to wikileaks.org to look at the emails? But who, exactly, was shocked to find that the DNC was a festering pool of corruption? Republicans? Hardly. Middle of the road voters? Nope. They know both parties are corrupt. Democrat partisans? Bingo. The hack of the DNC emails was aimed at Hillary Clinton’s base and more specifically at prominent Democrats and Democrat political operatives. They were the ones exposed. It was their gossip and backstabbing that was revealed. I follow politics and I had never heard of 95% of the people in either set of emails.

Let’s apply the same logic to John Podesta’s emails? They receive virtually zero coverage in the press and the coverage it did get was more often than not couched in the total horror of a political operative’s email getting hacked. Were you surprised that long time Clinton crony was buying and selling reporters and manipulating a lot of stuff behind the scenes? Not me. How about Democrats that were not big Hillary fans? Probably. Bernie Sanders voters, the progressive true believers? You better believe it.
...
Let’s go back to the RT distribution scheme. Which candidate carried those areas and who was more likely to listen to RT, average voters or Bernie Sanders voters? Bubba don’t listen to RT… unless they start featuring the naked weather-chicks…
...
As streiff notes elsewhere in the piece the Russia Today broadcast were not available on Direct TV or Dis, the service providers for rural areas where Trump actually won the election.  If their goal was apparently to delegitimize the election, their biggest allies since the election would have to be the Democrats and their media cohorts who have been pushing that narrative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iraq says civilian casualties in Mosul caused by ISIS booby trap, not US air strike

Liberal fascists strike against Trump supporters in Berkeley

OPEC reduces production again in price maintenance program