ONTD Political

An Electoral Process Trumped By Putin

12:04 am - 12/17/2016
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship


It is very likely now that Donald Trump will be inaugurated as president of the United States on Jan. 20, in no small part because of the direct intervention in and manipulation of the American electoral process by Vladimir Putin, Russia’s strongman who rose to power as a ruthless agent of the KGB, the former Soviet Union’s secret police.

As we all know, The Washington Post and The New York Times recently reported just how deeply Russian hackers invaded the computers of the Democratic Party, a move intended to confuse voters with leaked excerpts of emails and other documents and thus throw a monkey wrench into the election. Now The Post reports that the CIA believes the Russian meddling was deliberately intended to help sway the vote in Trump’s favor. And NBC News says it was Putin himself who “personally directed” those leaks.

Why did he do this? For one thing, according to Michael McFaul, the former American ambassador to Russia, Putin has a thing about Hillary Clinton. “He has had a vendetta against Hillary Clinton that has been known for a long time because of what she said about his elections back in the parliamentary elections of 2011,” McFaul told NBC News (Clinton had questioned the integrity of the Russian elections). But more important, McFaul continued, “He wants to discredit American democracy and make us weaker in terms of leading the liberal democratic order. And most certainly he likes President-elect Trump’s views on Russia.”

All of which, apparently, now has helped land us in the worst political fix since the Civil War, an electronic invasion that former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson says he believes could be “the largest intelligence coup since the cracking of the Enigma code during World War II.”

Yes, we know some of this remains speculation. Yes, we know Democrats would like to point attention away from some bad, self-inflicted mistakes the Clinton campaign made, mistakes that hurt it on Election Day. That they failed to realize the depth of the anger in the American heartland didn’t help. And neither did the FBI/James Comey intrusion.

Yes, we know the documents handed to WikiLeaks from the Clinton campaign and the DNC were real (although it’s worth noting that as The Times reports, some documents leaked from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation “turned out to have been altered [apparently by the hackers] to make it appear as if the foundation was financing Russian opposition members.”)

Yes, we know that despite all the Russia news, Republican efforts to suppress the vote are ongoing and a huge concern from which we cannot be distracted — and which must be addressed as well. And yes, we know the United States has consistently intervened in and sabotaged elections in other countries, actively working to install leaders who would kowtow to the interests of our government and American corporate interests.

But none of this negates the greatest implication of Putin’s ability to influence the election of a fellow authoritarian and would-be strongman to the presidency of the United States.

All of which, apparently, now has helped land us in the worst political fix since the Civil War, an electronic invasion that former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson says he believes could be “the largest intelligence coup since the cracking of the Enigma code during World War II.”

Yes, we know some of this remains speculation. Yes, we know Democrats would like to point attention away from some bad, self-inflicted mistakes the Clinton campaign made, mistakes that hurt it on Election Day. That they failed to realize the depth of the anger in the American heartland didn’t help. And neither did the FBI/James Comey intrusion.

Yes, we know the documents handed to WikiLeaks from the Clinton campaign and the DNC were real (although it’s worth noting that as The Times reports, some documents leaked from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation “turned out to have been altered [apparently by the hackers] to make it appear as if the foundation was financing Russian opposition members.”)

Yes, we know that despite all the Russia news, Republican efforts to suppress the vote are ongoing and a huge concern from which we cannot be distracted — and which must be addressed as well. And yes, we know the United States has consistently intervened in and sabotaged elections in other countries, actively working to install leaders who would kowtow to the interests of our government and American corporate interests.

But none of this negates the greatest implication of Putin’s ability to influence the election of a fellow authoritarian and would-be strongman to the presidency of the United States.

It is, in the words of former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who briefed George W. Bush on 9/11 but supported Hillary Clinton this year, “an attack on our very democracy. It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11.”


Nancy LeTourneau notes at Washington Monthly‘s Political Animal blog, “To understand what is happening here, it is important to reject the old Cold War frame about a contest between capitalism and communism. Russia has long since ceased to be a country built on the teachings of Karl Marx and has evolved into a right-wing ethno-nationalist plutocracy.”

As circumstantial as some of the evidence may seem, we must not forget that these anti-democratic tactics are something that Vladimir Putin has attempted not only in the United States but also in a lot of other places. He is the “standard-bearer and patron” of extremist politics, Daniel Benaim and Perry Camack wrote in The New Republic this past March, and “has paired his brand of hyper-macho contempt for liberalism with active support for radical parties in Europe.” Now he has brought his brand to America and found a kindred salesman in Donald Trump.

Did Trump or members of his staff know what was going on? Probably.

Remember that Trump’s first campaign manager, Paul Manafort — the “King of K Street” lobbyists — had pro-Russian factions as clients; his name with multimillion amounts beside it was found in a log of financial transactions after he had helped Putin’s friends in the Ukraine. When word began to spread of these ties, Manafort left the campaign. He is now back in Trump’s graces and, according to Bloomberg Businessweek, positioned to reap the harvest of his relationship with Trump and his merry band of crony capitalists. It could be most revealing to hear what Manafort would say, under oath, about his intercession between Trump and Putin.

And just how extensive are our president-elect’s ties to Russian oligarchs? How much does he owe Russian banks? Now we may know more exactly why Trump has refused to release his tax returns; they could be full of clues about his foreign creditors. We’d learn more if he’d divest his business interests, too, but he won’t. We do know that Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets... We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” And there’s more to come as Putin and Trump mix and mingle Russian oligarchs with American plutocrats.

What happens now? How do we confront this crisis of a president-elect who may owe his victory partly to the stealth of his Russian doppelganger? How do we get to the bottom of this before it is too late and a very unstable, egomaniacal and vindictive Donald Trump is handed control of the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the US Army and Navy and Air Force, the Departments of State and Homeland Security, the IRS and every regulatory agency of the US government? Who from within will challenge him then?

President Obama has ordered a full report from the intelligence community before he leaves office. A bipartisan commission like the 9/11 investigation could become the public watchdog, certainly more so than proposed House and Senate committee investigations which Trump loyalists in the GOP might publicly support but certainly attempt to stymie.

Maybe, as Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) has suggested, the vote of the Electoral College on Monday could be delayed. In a tweet, he wrote, “I believe that Electors should be given all information relevant to this interference before they make their decisions and before they cast their votes,” and told The Washington Post, “If we don’t act early, and soon, we run the risk of having an illegitimate president. That’s not good for Donald Trump and not good for America.”

Not likely to happen, we know. But listen well. Not only does this increasingly seem like yet another step in Putin’s worldwide subversion of liberal democratic beliefs and Trump’s desire to enrich his family and cronies by surrounding himself with multimillionaires and billionaires known for their predatory appetites; it is one more step to a planet dominated by international oligarchs and kleptocrats, part and parcel of a “huge con job,” as Nancy LeTourneau writes. The Trump campaign “convinced a lot of Americans that they are a populist movement on behalf of the American worker when in reality it is all about an attempt to improve the fortunes on the very global elite they rail against.” If that means hooking up with Putin and authoritarianism, she concludes, Trump’s people believe that’s not a problem.

Just look at the appointment of ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, a man who’s been a happy business partner of Putin’s Russia — and other totalitarian regimes — for years. He has shaken the bloody hand of just about every despot whose power rests on the black gold beneath their subjects’ feet, and it doesn’t seem to keep him awake at night. He’s made it clear: His only interest is making money. So don’t be surprised if one day soon you hear talk from the White House of something very like that golden oldie of World War II, a non-aggression pact — this one to divide up the world’s natural resources.

Trump had nothing to say about the judgment of the intelligence community that his pal Putin directed the sabotage of his opponent’s campaign, except, “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it.” It was the reaction of someone whose answer to any summons toward responsibility is a tantrum. The difference is that this immature, undisciplined and thuggish 70-year-old is about to be handed the keys of the kingdom.

Source: HuffPost

How Drumpf becoming potus makes me feel

blackjedii 17th-Dec-2016 12:23 pm (UTC)
Clinton would not have won even without the DNC leaks. Even without them there were too many other things that her team should have done and didnt and too many things she DID do that reflected poorly on her. Death of a thousamd cuts and all


Alao the way media is reporting on it makes it sound like Russiam engineers broke in all stealth like. They didnt. Podesta fell for those stupid "reset your password here" scams.


That is not to downpkay the serious nature of Russia wanting to screw the US over for their benefit but the Dems are way better off to strategize about how to combat the Rs and start winning even as early as next year when they will proceed to lose even more state elections. Considering McAuliffe is a Clintonite there is a pretty damn good chance Virginia is going red.
m14mouse 17th-Dec-2016 02:16 pm (UTC)
Yup. I was thinking the same thing.
hikerpoet 17th-Dec-2016 02:26 pm (UTC)
Part of me agrees with your last paragraph. I've seen so many times in here, "Let's keep Warren in the Senate where we need her". Well, that is far from forgone.

On the other hand, other outlying factors for this one--outsized dishonesty, a seeming want for Authoritarianism, complete distrust in the media, period--might very well translate over to these races too, now that folks have seen how well it worked. So fixing, reflecting, discussing, investigating, could very well go into the strategizing.
blackjedii 17th-Dec-2016 02:35 pm (UTC)
I agree wrt Dems maybe looking at strategies and reyooling but like... Idk.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it. I aint even mad at Trump for winninfg. Trump did EXACTLY what he usually does and because he is a rich asshole bully it works.

I am angry at the DNC for spending more time paying and looking at data than talking to ordinary (read non wealthy) people. I am pissed that at the barest whiff that their candidate was less than perfect they circled the wagons and called the criticism blanket sexism and paranoid lies complete with trying to control media outleta and outright lying about the veracity of the leaks. I am so beyond burned out that they only give lip service to economic disparity while shilling out MILLIONS to firms and lobbyists and data services buf gave as little as they could to struggling campaigns because the Dems thought they were either dead in the water or not statistically relevant.

I want Dems to ein but I want them to win because I THOUGHT they cared about the little guy. After this election I am not so sure and the fact that they are so fixated on Russia as a new boogeyman amd mot their own shortcomings ia telling. :(
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
thelilyqueen 17th-Dec-2016 03:37 pm (UTC)
Eh, I'm not sure I agree with your first paragraph. Clinton came out ahead in the popular vote, and some states she lost by small margins. If even just 1-2% of voters in critical areas would have voted differently - which I don't think is out of the question - we'd be awaiting her inauguration next month.

Do agree though we need to get down to business.
flake_sake 17th-Dec-2016 12:30 pm (UTC)
How come, that there is No political reaction to this. The election was comrpomized, it needs to be repeated. That's it.
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
blackjedii 17th-Dec-2016 02:13 pm (UTC)
No it wasnt. It really wasnt. As far as anyone can tell the machines worked fine, thetr were no power ot texhnixal outtages, no terrorist attacks. There were no false calls on who won that could have forced thr AP into reporting a lie before all votes were counted.

It is true that Rs really did everything they could to make aure non Rs had a harder time voting. But tbqh the Dems didnt help their case at all thia year
evildevil 17th-Dec-2016 02:42 pm (UTC)
The "Russians stole the election" meme needs to fucking die. It is a distraction.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

moonshaz 17th-Dec-2016 03:49 pm (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, flake_sake. People keep missing the  point. This is extremely serious, and it's not just because HRC didn't win. Serious as that is, that is NOT the main point AT ALL. Like Michael Morell said , this is “an attack on our very democracy. It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11."


When I read those words, they had a chilling effect on me. "The political equivalent of 9/11"?! Holy shit! And yet all people here seem to want to focus on is that the DNC and HRC made strategy mistakes? Hello? This is SO much bigger than that. This is a threat to our democracy. What part of "We have an illegitimately elected president elect who is in bed with the dictator of a hostile foreign power" do people not unerstand?


I. DON'T.  GET. IT.



Edited at 2016-12-17 04:06 pm (UTC)
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
(no subject) - Anonymous - Expand
omimouse 17th-Dec-2016 10:00 pm (UTC)
And right around now is where I'm realizing just how much I miss good investigative journalism, because there's no one involved in this that's telling anything close to even half the truth. And as far as I can tell, the media is mostly yelling a lot, or saying nobody should be yelling, or weathervaning for ratings. Which means I'm left with the knowledge that this is something that might be a big deal, or it might be a small deal, or it might not be a deal at all, but literally everyone is pushing their own agenda so hard via this issue that there's no way in hell to figure out which of those three it *is*.

I suspect the next four years are, among a great many other things, going to be a constant reminder of *why* a working free press is vital to a functioning democracy.
blackjedii 17th-Dec-2016 10:25 pm (UTC)
+10000000

Also... A free oress NOT paid for by pruvate entities. That would help

Edited at 2016-12-17 10:27 pm (UTC)
naotmaa 17th-Dec-2016 10:46 pm (UTC)
x2. Absolutely.
moonshaz 17th-Dec-2016 11:44 pm (UTC)
no one involved in this that's telling anything close to even half the truth

I agree about the importance of investigative journalism, by I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that everyone involved is lying or that they're just not telling all they know? I definitely agree they're not telling all they know; it's been spelled out pretty clearly that as much as we would all like to know more, a lot of that information is classified at this point.

Otoh, if you think there's a bunch of lying going on, I'd be extremely interested to know who you think is lying and what they're lying about. That's an honest question, because I'm really not sure what you meant.

One thing we do know at this point is that both the CIA and the FBI now agree that the hacking occurred, and that it was launched by Moscow with the intent of helping Trump win. It's true very few details have been made public about what the evidence is, etc., but I don't see any reason not to believe it. I also believe (although we haven't been told this in so many words) that Trump was aware of what was going on and was quite happy about it, which is incredibly disgusting, imo. That's one area where some good solid investigative journalism could be helpful--digging into exactly what the extent of Trump's knowledge and/or involvement were.
checkerdandy 19th-Dec-2016 03:58 am (UTC)
It's pretty fucking rich to me that we're supposed to believe the CIA on pretty much anything having to do with democratic election processes.
This page was loaded Oct 21st 2019, 12:09 pm GMT.