Russian Hacking – Much Ado About Nothing

Russian Hacking – Much Ado About Nothing

The Russian Hacking story means absolutely nothing to me.  Why, you may ask?  My answer is simple, we have been doing this type of thing to each other since 1946.  It was called the Cold War.  And, although, it may have officially ended, it did not end the mis-trust and spying on each other.  This has continued since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The Russian Hacking incident is just another example of Russia meddling in world affairs.  It is nothing new.  It has been done ad-infinitum.  (Now, keep in mind, I’m assuming it actually happened.  Thus far, I have not seen any proof or evidence either way).  During the Cold War, the KGB and other Soviet agencies, did whatever they could to further their Imperialist goals.  Spying, bugging, killing, etc., were the norm.  Well, hacking is now the norm.  You don’t need to risk putting a bug in an embassy anymore.  Just hack the other side’s computers.

And, whether you like this or not, we have been just as guilty.  The United States may not have hacked a Russian election to date, but I can give you many examples where we tried to influence the politics in another country.  In fact, President Obama tried to get rid of Bibi Netanyahu in the most recent Israeli Election.  He didn’t even bother to hide it.  And, let’s not forget Vietnam.  That was the ultimate election tampering.

Russian Hacking New Toy

However, now we have the technology to hack.  That makes Russian Hacking a new toy in the world of espionage.  And, unfortunately, it will continue.  But, it still doesn’t bother me.  Like I said, it’s been going on, in one form or the other, for years.

Julian AssangeChina hacked Sony and thousands of employees’ private information was compromised.  Yahoo admitted to a major hacking in 2013 and thousands of users’ private information was comprised.  Someone hacked the DNC.  Whether it was Russia or someone else, we don’t know at this point.  The CIA and FBI seem to think it was Russia that gave the information to Wikileaks.  However, just yesterday Julian Assange said he didn’t get the information from Russia.  See e.g.  Well, if it didn’t come from Russian, then where did it come from?  To tell you the truth, it really doesn’t matter.

There is also evidence that it may have been just a simple phishing scam on Mr. Podesta’s account.  Regardless of how Wikileaks got the emails, they did.  And, they released it.  So what?

As President Obama said yesterday, there is no evidence whatsoever of vote tampering.  That would be news.  But, trying to influence the election of another country.  I’m sorry, but that just isn’t news and hasn’t been for sixty years.

End of story!




Share This Post

5 Responses to "Russian Hacking – Much Ado About Nothing"

  1. Hi Frank. Im glad you mentioned Obamas meddling in the Israeli election concerning Bibi. Many on the left only like the double standard when it benefits them.

      1. So when Obama does it then it’s bad but when the Russians do it to help the Republicans then it’s okay and just normal procedure. Is that not a double standard on your part? How about Obama should not have done it and the Russians should not have either?

  2. National security is an argument, not an excuse.

    Spies are put to death by the opposition, raised to the status of a patriot by the other side. This is the cauldron of good and bad, deception and truthfulness, truth and lies, the value judged differently by which side one is on.

    If one hides the “truth” under the cloak of law instead of social mores, and if the release of the truth, by any means, is verboten, we have lost the essence of conscience and the Martin Luther King Jr, axiom of civil disobedience most certainly applies. It is the core of Ayn Rand’s egoism and principled individualism.

    Laws and penalties are not absolute, else why a jury. And if a jury, does this not open the door for interpretation and nullification? What is the foundation of a “hung jury” if not a challenge to “reasonable” (as in doubt) other than certainty?

    What was established here, the national election of 2016, was that the “truth” was exposed and left for “interpretation”. Is there an argument to the contrary? Did anyone mount a challenge as to the “truth” of the matter”? Was it the simple “weight” of the truth that overwhelmed and demanded obfuscation?

    There is generally a moral exception to the code of “confidentiality”, whether it is legal, tort, doctor, or confessional, and that exception is arguable, the greater good for the less evil, or in the extreme, when honoring that code disallows any barrier to a WMD type of incident. Are there other times when a moral equivalency applies?

    One should never condemn a compassionate priest who would betray the seal of the confessional and thereby save a child from being sexually abused by a cleric. It never happened, big time, often, in the Church Cleric Sexual Abuse Scandal. Priests absolved themselves in confession, embraced the omerta divined, and kept on trucking.

    Many argue that there is an alt-morality, the province of morality abstractly contrived, when the majority, or the minority-the province of the establishment, has, at very important times, gotten it wrong, and those mores can and must be nullified. This is the Nuremberg principle, where a righteous conscience reigns supreme over rules of an outrageous war.

    It should be axiomatic that if the “truth” makes it way out of a political “safe house”, out of the slime pit of repression, suppression and a lust for tyranny, if it qualifies, and in this instance most are convinced a jury would acquit or nullify, those persecuted for exposing, firmly on the foundation of the Martin Luther King Jr, philosophy of civil disobedience, then it is absolved, else prove, ascertain, confirm why not!

    It is as if the “truth” is the John Irving “under toad”, waiting to drag us under. Many an oath obligates one to “lie” lest the truth cause damage. In this election, how close did we come? Would a lie have been better?

    Omertà has a good and evil twin. Will the “truth” set you free? For those who use malevolent purpose to twist and torture the social and political construct of the “truth”, coming from the likes of Donna Brazile, to the Debbie Wasserman Schultze, to Van Jones, to John Podesta, to the Bill and Hillary Clinton, these master prevaricators of Machiavellian and collectivists mendacities, and their acolytes should not be allowed to prevail, whatever it takes, nor how long it requires. To retire the Clinton Machine is to honor, in a major way, the strategy that brought down Al Capone on income tax charges.

    In its simplest form did “Spotlight” produce or cause good or evil? And one cannot purchase that answer from anywhere else but our conscience. There is a noble place for jury nullification of man-made laws which protect the “guilty”.

    And if it is prison for Snowden, Assange or Ellsberg, or a betrayal of conscience, may the self-imposed verdict be strong enough for the former before omerta.


Post Comment