Cybersecurity
Now Reading
Is Russia Really Looking to Hack the U.S. Presidential Elections?
1

Is Russia Really Looking to Hack the U.S. Presidential Elections?

by P. H. MadoreOctober 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton and her party believe it’s Russia’s fault that various scandals surrounding her and the Democratic National Committee have come to light in recent weeks. From the organization’s early unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders to the fact that the DNC knew Donald Trump was the candidate Hillary could most likely beat, and therefore pushed for him to be the Republican nominee, voters in this election have a clearer picture of what goes on behind closed political doors than perhaps any previous one.

Russia, and many other countries in the world, for that matter, have a vested interest in who will become the next US president. With one of the largest military forces and perhaps the most resources, whoever is at the helm of the US government come January will swing a mighty stick. Donald Trump has publicly expressed a bizarre admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Cold War-era KGB officer and all-around strongman leader. This, along with various digital forensics, has led Hillary Clinton and many in her party to simplify the issue of scandals regarding internal communications now made public: blame Russia.

Before we get into a breakdown of the various things which outline – or dispel – the likelihood of Russian interference, a timeline of events seems in order.

  • March, 2015: Hillary Clinton becomes the subject of an investigation that she had illegally used a private e-mail server while acting in an official capacity as the Secretary of State. Various debacles take place as Clinton makes the appearance of co-operating with the investigation. Ultimately, it is proven that on at least a couple of occasions, Clinton’s server, which was insecure by modern computer security standards, contained classified information – which is illegal.
  • March, 2016: WikiLeaks posts a massive trove of Hillary Clinton e-mails.
  • May, 2016: The State Department’s Office of the Inspector General releases a report stating that Clinton was never officially permitted to use her own server while Secretary of State, a claim the candidate had made on multiple occasions.
  • June, 2016: Guccifer 2.0, whose name references Guccifer, the Romanian hacker who said in May that Clinton’s e-mail server was “like an open orchid on the Internet,” breaches Democratic National Committee servers and leaks internal communications revealing that long before the primaries had ever commenced, the organization already assumed Hillary Clinton would be the candidate. Scandalously, it was revealed that the organization may have been involved in some of the uglier smear campaigns against Bernie Sanders, including the “Bernie Bros” who actively harassed Clinton supporters.
  • July, 2016: WikiLeaks posts a large DNC e-mail archive.
  • October, 2016: WikiLeaks posts a trove of e-mails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Clinton campaign continues to attribute such leaks to Russians, with Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin making a public statement on the matter:

It is absolutely disgraceful that the Trump campaign is cheering on a release today engineered by Vladimir Putin to interfere in this election, and this comes after Donald Trump encouraged more espionage over the summer and continued to deny the hack even happened at Sunday’s debate. he timing shows you that even Putin knows Trump had a bad weekend and a bad debate.

Russian Statecraft Or Hacker-Induced Political Transparency?

Members of the US government intelligence community view the hacks as being directly sponsored by the Russian government, a typical play and well-documented method of Russian statecraft. Robert Dietz, a veteran of the CIA and NSA, said Russian interests would be in determining which candidate was more likely to be friendly to their policies, telling the Washington Post that the information gathered by also hacking Trump:

… may provide tips for understanding his style of negotiating. In short, this sort of intelligence could be used by Russia, for example, to indicate where it can get away with foreign adventurism.

Yet few leaks on Trump have come to light, making it seem that the hacking endeavors of the Russian government, as confirmed by a security called CrowdStrike who reviewed DNC computer systems and identified two Russians working for the Russian government, are not simply about causing disruption in the US election cycle, but rather have a specific goal in mind: the elevation of Donald Trump to the presidency.

Further illustrating the likelihood of official Russian involvement is the release of altered leaked documents, as reported by Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald. Eichenwald’s writing was incorrectly attributed to Sidney Blumenthal by a Russian news organization. Donald Trump used the doctored, leaked e-mail in a recent speech, believing that the long-time friend of Hilary Clinton had actually said that more could have been done about Benghazi. In response, Eichenwald has written:

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the same manufactured story as truth.

The Obama administration recently officially acknowledged that it believed the Russian government had been involved in meddling in US politics this election season, and the president is currently considering a “proportional” response, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Glove hacker keyboard

But is the fact that Russian hackers have been involved in securing the documents, or that Russian news agencies have made false claims in relation to the leaked documents, as important as the contents of the documents themselves? The deflection strategy from the Clinton campaign to “blame Russia” fails to address what is actually at issue: the anti-democratic means by which the candidate came by her candidacy, the failure of the DNC to properly consider all would-be nominees, with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz actively supporting Hillary Clinton in her capacity as DNC Chairwoman long before the nominee had even been decided.

There is even the lingering possibility that the nomination vote in Brooklyn, New York was, in effect, rigged, with tens of thousands of voters falling off the rolls. Such things are interesting because they are true, regardless of who made them public information.

WikiLeaks has a long history of publicizing information about governments and other powerful organizations around the world. In the most recent leaks, it has acted as the primary source of dissemination. So while the government and the Democratic party are quick to place blame at the feet of Vladimir Putin, whom Donald Trump has openly expressed admiration for, it seems WikiLeaks is intent, as always, on forcing the matter of transparency.

The contents of the e-mail archives and other leaks have not been disputed, but the method by which they were obtained is called into question. So, American voters are basically being told that they should disregard the nefarious activities of Clinton and the DNC even if they are true because the Russian government wants them to vote for Donald Trump. The odds of people voting in favor of Trump as a result of Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s e-mail scandals are pretty small, by the way. The first scandal, regarding her use of a private server and privately trafficking in classified information, has been going on for the duration of her campaign, and yet the candidate enjoys a double-digit favoritism among American voters polled.

More Interesting Than Bernie’s Plight: Hillary Clinton’s Secret Wall Street Speeches

Hillary Clinton

As recently as February, Bernie Sanders urged Clinton to release the transcripts of various paid speeches she has given to Wall Street. Clinton had failed to do so when WikiLeaks managed to do so itself. The speeches reveal a person who opposes the legalization of marijuana and believes the financial industry should reform and essentially regulate itself.

The friendliness and favorable tone of Clinton’s remarks to various Wall Street banks would seem to make clear the reason that her campaign would not release these transcripts themselves: many liberals, including especially those who supported Bernie Sanders, want to see intense regulation and forced reform of the financial industry, along with higher taxation. That Clinton was personally enriched in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for each speech doesn’t help, either.

So, is Russia really looking to hack the U.S. presidential elections? The answer seems to be yes, but this should not detract from the value of the information the public now has at its disposal. The character of executive politics for at least the next four years can be previewed in the method by which the nomination was obtained – by any means necessary – and the beliefs privately expressed by Clinton to Wall Street cronies.

At an October 2015 debate, Clinton said she supports the use of medical marijuana and wanted to use a “wait and see” approach in regards to recreational legalization. But in one of her speeches to Wall Street, Clinton said that regarding the legalization of marijuana she was “short in all senses of the word,” which in the context of the conversation meant she was against it. Many younger voters have grown up with an attitude that the end of the Drug War and the lack of support for medical marijuana is long overdue.

While Russian interference seems likely, the Clinton campaign has only themselves to blame for any backlash from the leaks at hand. WikiLeaks is merely doing its job of providing secret documents to the press and public, and whether Russians would prefer to see Trump as the next president or not, a move which represented the taking of accountability would be more likely to assuage voter concerns than would the continual deflection strategy employed by the Clinton campaign.

Images from Shutterstock.


Advertised sites are not endorsed by us. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
What's your reaction?
Love it
0%
Funny
0%
Meh..
0%
What!?
0%
Hate it
0%
  • YourBuddy

    If Julian Assange is so fanatical about the truth then why does he not also get the goods on Donald Trump along with Goldman Sachs and the 1% that think those of us not so rich can be pushed around, ripped off , raped and unable to do anything about it because we do not have the money to carry through with a lawsuit or proper Civil Action? I say he is rather one sided in his quest and it is more like some kind of personal vendetta. Maybe he is on someone’s payroll!