Discussion with a friend of mine on Facebook. Here's the question:
Let me see if I understand this correctly, The Russians allegedly hacked
into the emails of members of the DNC, and others associated with the party.
They found and released through another entity the content of those emails
which revealed alleged corruption and also the inner workings of the Party
which showed that certain highly placed officials had conspired to "rig"
the primary election. These emails also allegedly showed the inner true
thoughts and feelings of certain highly placed members of the DNC and the
party in general.
We are in an uproar that the Russians, in doing this, affected the votes of
American citizens and possibly cost HRC the Presidential election.
We are not in an uproar that this corruption was going on in the first place.
Do I understand all this correctly?
My response:
FWIW, I respectfully disagree. First, a disclaimer: All I know about this is
what I've been reading from and hearing in the media.
I am in an uproar more about the shady and shameful actions of the DNC than
I am about the Russians. The New York Times posted a great article in their
politics section this week about the failings of the DNC. It first recapped
the ouster of the former chairwoman, and then noted that her replacement lost
her position at CNN for basically doing the same thing. In my view, the
Democrats would WANT us to blame the Russians, because because it takes the
heat off of the DNC.
I'm not saying that the Russians didn't attempt to meddle with the outcome of
the election; I'm pretty sure they've been doing this kind of thing probably
through the Cold War — difference being the invention and popularity of
social media.
Regarding the content of the DNC e-mail messages:
"Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign" (The New York Times, July 22, 2016)
When I was talking about Donna Brazile's dismissal from CNN, I was specifically
recalling this article:
"Donna Brazile to Democrats: ‘We failed you’" (Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2017)
For further reading:
"CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter" (The New York Times, Oct. 31, 2016)
Regarding former DNC Chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL):
"Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Resign D.N.C. Post" (The New York Times, July 25, 2016)
Regarding Assange and WikiLeaks:
"Assange: Clinton win would have been 'consolidation of power'" (The Hill, Dec. 25, 2016)
On the topic of the hacking, my point was mainly that the notion of
foreign governments collecting intelligence on the political processes
of their adversaries is nothing new. In my opinion, what makes 2016 different
than, say, Cold War era efforts in the early 80's, is the pervasiveness and
popularity of the Internet. I found
this New York Times article that identifies
two separate Russian units that posted DNC and RNC missives to websites they created.
Here's a quick summary by The New York Times.
I would have to believe that these units had unqualified success compared with their
counterparts of 35 years ago — the Internet connects those units directly with the
world.
In an interview with White House Press Secretary
Josh Earnest, The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration kept mum
about the DNC hack for over a year in order to avoid politicizing the intelligence process
— something to which the administration had been keenly sensitive since the Bush Administration's
efforts to justify the Iraq invasion. The article further stated that any announcement regarding
such intelligence matters should come from the intelligence community, given that the President
was openly supporting his party's candidate, as a function of custom at the very least.