Here’s what I have to say about “Russiagate”

1. There was never a concerted effort by the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Or if there was, no significant evidence has ever been presented to show that. US intelligence agencies confirm that not a single vote was changed.

2. A small Russian company bought $200,000 worth of Facebook ads concerning the election. $2.6 billion were spent in the 2016 presidential election. $200,000 was a drop in the bucket. Two important points here: a Russian company with “ties” to the Russian government does not make what it does an actual action of the Russian government. No one knows what those “ties” mean, and it is obvious from the small scale of the purchase that this was more of an experiment than an actual attempt to change anything.

3. It is possible, even likely, that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer system. But that does not mean that they released what they found to WikiLeaks. A good comparison is this: you are a sloppy homeowner. You don’t lock your doors. People come in and out all the time. Some take things, some don’t. Lots of people had access to the DNC data. That includes Russia, but there’s no reason to believe that Russia gave the information to WikiLeaks.

4. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, now in jail, specifically stated that the DNC information did not come from a “state” actor, which rules out Russia. There’s no evidence that Julian Assange has ever lied to the media.

5. He is obscure here in the United States, but Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, is a highly principled person who gave up his diplomatic career in the effort to criticize human rights abuses in Central Asia. His book “Murder in Samarkand” is awesome. Murray works with WikiLeaks. Murray says that he received the DNC documents, probably on a thumb drive, in a park near American University in Washington DC, from a disgruntled DNC staffer who is angry about the way the DNC treated Bernie Sanders in 2016. Like Julian Assange, there is no evidence that Murray has ever lied.

6. Technical experts say that the data copied from the DNC server was removed at a speed consistent with being copied to a thumb drive, which is much faster than the speed at which it would have been copied by being accessed remotely over the Internet. In other words, it was a leak, not a hack. Just as Craig Murray says.

7. To say the least, the US intelligence community has a long history of lying to the press.

8. In conclusion, no one can be sure exactly how the DNC data ended up with WikiLeaks, but the odds are currently overwhelmingly in favor of the leak theory.

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

40 thoughts on “Here’s what I have to say about “Russiagate”

  1. 1. There was never a concerted effort by the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
    3. It is possible, even likely, that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee computer system.

    It is possible, even likely, that Ted just contradicted himself.

    1 … US intelligence agencies confirm that not a single vote was changed.
    7 … the US intelligence community has a long history of lying to the press.

    It is possible, even likely, that he just did so again. (And a citation is *seriously* needed on that first one. Is the NSA is hacking into your brain now? ‘cuz I can see no other way to ‘confirm’ it, even ignoring the fact that most people don’t know why they make decisions in the first place.)

    I’m waiting for the [full] Mueller report to drop before declaring absolute victory, but right now I’m ahead 99 to zip.

    • Yes the agencies lie all the time in a temporal sense (they lie whenever it’s convenient), but it’s not possible for them to lie all the time in a quantitative sense (not every utterance is a lie). Ted’s argument holds up well if you accept the very real notion that the agency in question isn’t lying about the votes.

      • > Ted’s argument holds up well if you accept the very …

        … silly notion that the agencies are capable of reading not only your mind, but everyone else’s mind as well.

        Interesting how ‘the agencies’ are bastions of truth when they corroborate the deniers’ pre-conceived notions, but dirty rotten liars when they disagree.

    • The keyword is “concerted.“ There’s no contradiction there. I may have contradicted myself on other matters that other times but not this time. I would imagine that the Russian government would have a political intelligence motivation for knowing what the Democratic Party was up to.

      • Over 200 pages of the Mueller report is dedicated to that effort, which hardly sounds like the work of a lone individual.

  2. Is Assange allergic to any foods? Cuz I’m betting he’s gonna “accidentally” get served something like a shrimp omelet cooked in peanut oil before he can testify or speak on the record about who actually gave him the thumb drive.
    Maybe in 20 years we’ll find out who in the US gummint ordered Ecuador to bounce him out, but I find the timing just a little too pat that Assange was dragged out right before the Meuller report went live.

  3. I think we may be collectively straining at a gnat.
    Here’s the biggest issue:
    “Murray says that he received the DNC documents, probably on a thumb drive, in a park near American University in Washington DC, from a disgruntled DNC staffer who is angry about the way the DNC treated Bernie Sanders in 2016. Like Julian Assange, there is no evidence that Murray has ever lied.”

    The “way the DNC treated Sanders”? Let’s be quite clear on this. The DNC rigged the vote against Sanders, gave debate questions to Clinton ahead of time (I wonder if Hillary ran them past the war criminal Henry Kissinger, her mentor), and so on and so on. Don’t get me started on “Fahrenheit 11/9.”

    If you want election tampering that actually altered the outcome of the race, look no further.

    • > Here’s the biggest issue:

      Not even close. The biggest *proven* issue is that an unfriendly foreign nation made a concerted effort to undermine our most important civil right.

      The second-biggest *proven* issue is how frighteningly vulnerable we are to those kinds of attacks.

      But the biggest issue by far is how involved Trump was in that effort.

      Compared to those issues, “why Hillary lost” is a gnat. The deniers are comparing mountains to molehills & concluding that molehills are much, much bigger, and anyway mountains are an absurd hoax.

  4. Ted has nailed it. Moreover, as Professor Chomsky points out here, the McCarthyism 2.0 of the DNC types is in the process of helping Mr Trump to win the coming US presidential election of 2020. Talk about cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face – but I suppose it’s better for them than a Green New Deal….

    Henri

  5. Too bad we don’t have a psychiatrist posting here. He would be able to inform the class that arachnophobia will not make spiders bite you; coulrophobia will not make clowns eat you; and russophobia will not make Russians hack your election.

  6. How fortunate are we not to have, in lieu of a psychiatrist, have an unusually foul-mouth troll here that can inform us – again and again and again, ad nauseam – that it was those dastardly Russian hackers, not US voters, who installed dear Donald John Trump in the Oval Office (and who, it seems may well do so again in little more than a year) !… 😉

    Henri

    • Oh, henri, henri, henri.

      You can’t find one, single, solitary post I’ve ever made saying that the Dastardly Russians installed Donald John Paul George Ringo Trump in office. (only that they tried, which is pretty much canon at this point.)

      I *did* repeat ad nauseam that it wasn’t about Hillary.

      It’s still not about Hillary. It never was about Hillary. Hillary is not Russian. Hillary is not Trump. Hillary is irrelevant. It’s not about Hillary, m’kay?

      If you ever do meet a real psychiatrist, you might ask him why you believe Hillary is the head of a Vast Left Wing Russophobic Conspiracy bigger than the fake moon landing and the Kennedy assassination multiplied together.

      I am not qualified to make a diagnosis, but that sounds like “obsession” and “Paranoid delusions” to me.

      By the way, your mamma says “hi”

      • That disgusting foul-mouthed troll seems to believe that «[I] believe Hillary is the head of a Vast Left Wing Russophobic Conspiracy bigger than the fake moon landing and the Kennedy assassination multiplied together». Of course, it can find no evidence to support that claim at all, but it’s not unusual that trolls are not only foul-mouthed, but also delusionary. But at least it is correct about one thing ; it is not qualified to make a diagnosis…. 😉

        Henri

      • If one is to deny one’s own words, one shouldn’t try to do so on a forum where all of one’s words are unalterably recorded unto the heat death of the internet. Most especially on the same page where one has repeated those very same words.

        Would you please indicate which of the following statements you deny every having asserted, implied, or insinuated? ***

        qui tacet consentire videtur

        1) Russia did not hack the DNC servers, rather this is a hoax invented by the DNC to explain why Hillary lost.

        2) The entire US intelligence community supported this hoax, along with many European intelligence agencies.

        3) Many private cybersecurity firms also supported this hoax.

        4) Russia did not mount a cyber PSYOP campaign on social media, rather this is a hoax invented by the DNC to explain why Hillary lost.

        5) The entire US intelligence community supported this hoax, along with many European intelligence agencies.

        6) Many private cybersecurity firms also supported this hoax.

        7) Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft also supported this hoax.

        8) The Russians were not trying to throw the election for Donald John Trump, rather this is a hoax invented by the DNC to explain why Hillary lost.

        9) The entire US intelligence community supported this hoax, along with many European intelligence agencies.

        10) Russia was not the perpetrator of all the crimes that didn’t happen, rather this is a hoax invented by those who practice “McCarthyism 2.0”

        *** I’m done, unless by some miracle you actually provide a simple, direct answer to the simple, direct question above. (Although the resulting heart attack would probably delay any response.)

  7. The fatuous stupid troll, which aside from employing sexual slurs when argument fails (as it so often does for it) and delights in misquoting and putting words in the mouths of others so as to create strawmen to knock down, now claims that it is «done». Let us hope that that is indeed the case, but I’ll believe it when I see that it no longer infests this forum….

    Henri

    • And yet, when given a chance to refute those words, you will not. I’d ask why – but that’s obvious to anyone reading this.

      As always, qui tacet consentire videtur

      Also as always, you:

      1) refuse to answer the question
      2) instead, reply with an ad hominem attack
      3) while complaining about ad hominem attacks
      4) and lose the argument by forfeit.

      (ergo, as noted below: Quod Erat Demonstrandum.)

    • As predicted, the fatuous stupid troll, despite its guarantees, is not «done», but continues to infest this forum. As we know, liars lie – and 馬鹿に付ける薬は無い。。。。 ;-)

      Henri

      • Haters gonna hate, liars gonna lie, and pseudointellectuals gonna post comments in a language no-one here reads.

        As predicted, the pseudointellectual pswedish psupposed psychiatrist continues to launch ad hominem attacks while complaining about ad hominem attacks and avoiding answering a simple, straightforward question. Even as said simple, straightforward question would prove him right.

        As I’ve now noted twice, the argument *is* done, and the PPPP lost. Sorry to disappoint, but I see no reason to leave a forum where I win every argument. Worry not little PPPP, I’ll put you back on ignore just as soon as I get bored with pointing out your numerous shortcomings.

    • I’ve been listening to Stephen F. Cohen’s appearances on the John Batchelor radio show for some time.

      I found this show after the Ukraine coup organized by Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland in February of 2014.

      Cohen is a great source of information to keep up with the New Cold War.

      • While Cohen is quite often a much-needed counterbalance in domestic conversations about US-Russia relations, he is not without his own biases.

        But he slipped a cog when he became a proponent of the thoroughly-debunked Vast Left Wing Conspiracy Theory.

        And like many other writers :: glances up ::, now that he’s been proven wrong, he insists he’s been proven right. Last I heard, he was still calling DastardlyRussiansGate a ‘fraud’ even after the Mueller report came out.

        I believe that such a huge disconnect from reality is called “Schizophrenia” – but again, I’m no expert on Crazy.

      • “With more than 95 percent of ballots cast on Sunday counted, Mr. Zelensky had won 73.17 percent of the vote, compared with just 24.5 percent for Petro O. Poroshenko, Ukraine’s incumbent president. Mr. Zelensky triumphed in every region, except for the area around the city of Lviv, a center of Ukrainian culture and nationalism in the west of the country.”

        https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/world/europe/Volodymyr-Zelensky-ukraine-elections.html

        The people of Ukraine have rejected Hillary’s choice as she loses a post-coup presidential election to a comic actor.

        In the Nuremberg war crime tribunals after WWII an effective defense for the Nazis was to cite similar crimes committed by the Allies.

        Pot calling kettle black.

        So, those who meddle in elections should not complain too vociferously when meddled with.

        Democrat uproar and outrage is little more than the home team losing a sporting event. In this case the home team was defeated by democracy, something the Democratic Party does not recognize as valid in their treatment of presidential primary elections as non-binding referenda.

      • > So, those who meddle in elections should not complain too vociferously when meddled with.

        NOTED: You’ve finally accepted the fact that the Dastardly Russians did indeed meddle in our election.

        Corollary: Those who insist that meddling is not a crime when perpetrated against one country should not complain too vociferously when the same is perpetrated against another.

        Me, I think it’s a crime for any country to meddle in another’s affairs, but I appear to be in the minority.

        That said, if my neighbor’s house is on fire I am sympathetic. If *my* house is on fire, I do, indeed react somewhat more strongly.

      • “NOTED: You’ve finally accepted the fact that the Dastardly Russians did indeed meddle in our election.”

        If you can call 0.2 million dollars spent from some location possibly in Russia as compared to 2,500 million dollars a meaningful attempt to change the outcome of an election held under the laws of a Constitution designed to keep it’s genocidal racist authors in power.

        “Democrat uproar and outrage is little more than the home team losing a sporting event. In this case the home team was defeated by democracy, something the Democratic Party does not recognize as valid in their treatment of presidential primary elections as non-binding referenda.”

        I noticed that you did not respond to the above mentioned fact that Democratic Party primary elections are merely non-binding referenda in effect in their defense of stacking the election outcome in favor of Hillary.

      • > I noticed that you did not respond to the above mentioned fact that Democratic Party primary elections are merely non-binding referenda in effect in their defense of stacking the election outcome in favor of Hillary.

        Oh, sorry. Didn’t realize a response was required. eh-hem, “I agree.”

        But as to the rest, have you heard of a little something informally called “The Mueller Report”? Over two hundred pages are dedicated to the Dastardly Russians’ efforts. Two hundred pages. You just cited one paragraph from one page – what do you suppose is on the other 199+? Does Mueller simply repeat the same paragraph over and over a few thousand times?

        Or does he document a few other things as well?

  8. A lying foul-mouthed troll given to sexual slurs and which pretends to know Latin and, unable to marshall a coherent argument, simply repeats its rants about those dastardly Russians ad nauseam, now presumes to tell us what languages participants on this fourm read ! Illiterate itself, its presumption might come as an amusing surprise to those unfamiliar with its previous postings here, but to most of us it’s just more of the tiresome same….

    Sad, but that’s the internet (world wide web). Tim Berners Lee has much on his conscience….

    Henri

    • ad hominem attack: check
      whining about ad hominem attacks: check
      zero answers: check

  9. Why post in “foreign” languages?

    Given that the goal of posting is to communicate, one must wonder why anyone would post in a language unknown to most posters on a particular forum. I can think of only four reasons:

    1) If a foreign phrase is ‘well known’ such as “e pluribus unum.”
    2) if the foreign phrase loses some subtlety in translation
    3) in order to impress readers with the writer’s massive intelligence
    4) in order to mock the practitioners of 3)

    1) Assumes at least a college-level education on the part of the readership (should be “high school”, but considering the state of today’s education, we’ll go with “college”). Given that this is the internet, it is not necessarily a valid assumption. If one’s goal is *truly* to communicate, it is always best to eschew nondomestic phraseology and polysyllabic confabulations.

    2) assumes that the audience likewise speaks the ‘foreign’ language idiomatically, else the subtlety is lost. (And if the audience does so, then why are they not conversing in said language in the first place?)

    3) is the most common usage, but it only works on gullible, ignorant, and easily-impressed people. Actual intellectuals experience Fremdscham upon reading that type of comment.

    4) is the most fun, especially when it goes so far over the writer’s head that he doesn’t even realize he’s being mocked.

  10. Foul-mouthed stupid lying troll – check. Incapable of understanding the responses to the repeated rhetorical «questions» it has posted it has received – check…. 😉

    Henri

    • SCORE!!!!

      “I already told you that, but you were too stupid to realize it.”

      Henri’s all time, number one response. This is where I say “will you please post a link to the spot where you answered it?” at which time henri goes back to simply repeating earlier insults without actually answering said question.

      This, from a man who claims to be a forensic psychiatrist. I can just imagine him locked in a small room with the likes of Anders Behring Breivik or Charles Manson, repeating over & over “I already told you that, but you were too stupid to realize it”

      Ad hominem attacks: 8
      Complaints about ad hominem attacks: 7
      Answers: 0

  11. Our resident foul-mouthed stupid lying troll, over and above its difficulties with the English language, also seems to have a problem with other languages, which it regards as «foreign» – and, not surprisingly, is so dim that it is incapable of using the resources available to the capable to deterrmine what they mean. 狗改不了吃屎. An expert on «communication» and a «true» intellectual (as opposed to the «false» one(s) which so oppress it on this forum…. 😉

    Sad….

    Henri

      • typo. I wouldn’t want to unfarily disparage a fellow interlocutionatorizor:

        Complaints about ad hominem attacks: 7

    • “it is incapable of using the resources available … ”

      Fail. It has no interest in doing so. The writer in question obviously lives in a fantasy world where the rest of us kneel at his feet, waiting to catch the pearls of wisdom as they dribble from his lips. (See “pseudointellectual” below)

      It would be perfectly happy to do so, were there pearls of wisdom actually dribbling.

  12. Given our stupid foul-mouthed resident troll’s difficulties with languages, not least Latin. which, however, it pretends to employ, it’s hardly surprising that it missed the fact that ad hominem refers to( a discourse relating to) a (male) human. In its case, the proper term would, of course, be ad monstrum. Epic fail…. 😉

    Henri

  13. I note that our stupid, foul-mouthed troll seems to expect (new) answers to the (rhetorical) questions it has pleased to pose many, many, many, many times on this long-suffering forum. Alas, given that it has always managed to ignore the responses it has received to those (rhetorical) questions, it does seem strange that it requests them again – but on the other hand, if one is not the sharpest knife in the drawer….

    Those dastardly Russians did it !… 😉

    Henri