Home | About | Donate

Putin Didn’t Undermine the Election. We Did


#1

Putin Didn’t Undermine the Election. We Did.

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Three weeks after Election Day, allegations of Russian interference in the contest continue to appear. Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, stated that there was a “conscious effort by a nation-state to achieve a specific end.” Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has formally called for a recount in Wisconsin, citing reports of potential outside hacking.


#2

Katrina at least gets it.

All of this finger pointing to Russia is just a cop out and an unwillingness to come to grips with how corrupt the process is in those elections.

The next step to recovery is recognizing this corruption is non partisan. It is now intrinsic to both the major political parties. It so pervasive that it has very much become a "go corrupt or go home" type scenario.

This corruption is not limited to the USA. Moneyed interests and the Corporations are destroying Democracy across the Western World.


#3

Thank you! A breath of fresh air. It is ironic that our POTUS is declared leader of the 'free' world.


#4

intelligence agencies state???
I thought all they said that the hacking was consistent with the methods of Russia.
Quite an accusation to escalate that to definite proof.
This is what happens when accusations (this time from Hillary) are repeated as the gospel truth.

Also remember that Mr. Podestas's password was .... wait for it
password
(actually something like P8ssw0rd but still easily guessed)
It would not take a Russian Spy Agency to guess this access - a middle school hacker could have done it.


#5

My headline:
PUTIN DIDN'T UNDERMINE THE ELECTION THE DNC DID.


#7

Free press. Ha! That's funny. Free to what? Entertain us?!!
Without a fairness doctrine folks should assume their news is tainted and purely one-sided. Propaganda even!
Here's an idea:
Why not try to live up to a self-imposed fairness doctrine? We can even do it here on CD. Report both sides issues as fairly as you can first. Once the issues have been fairly stated, then one can go into a discussion of the nuances that make the progressive route (for this web site's purposes and desired readership anyway) the better choice.


#8

Thank you Katrina. I'm so tired of hearing how the Russians did it and how they caused every problem that occurred. Clinton started this drum beat against the Russians to evade the criticism she was receiving over the Podesta emails and the private server. She had full intent to confront Russia in Syria, so it worked for her, or so she thought.
I hear people say this nonsense all the time, some on this site, as if it was gospel.
There is no proof of any of it. Computer experts will tell you they can make a hack look like it came from any country. Bottom line is it's all a big lie and Clinton did it to herself.


#9

"But he didn’t undermine American elections. We do that to ourselves."

No, the oligarchy undermined our elections. We just sat back, powerless to stop its machinations.

Direct Democracy


#10

Katrina vanden Hoevel has a habit of pandering (especially if it pays off in alliances with the elite) when she would be better off abandoning her meritocracy mentality and providing real progressive analysis; a much better analysis is offered by Rebecca Solnit run today in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/us-election-recount-trump-hacking


#11

Of Sanders and Clinton which is the more likely to confront Russia? In many of the states the same system was used as in the main election. If the Russians were inclined and capable of hacking the election, I think they would have started with the Democratic primary. Why wait for the general election and why not influence the elections of Congressional hawks? The nonsense is overwhelming. As usual.


#12

I reckon that the Kremln apparatchiki must regard the USA's POTUS elections as a daily sitcom providing them with a great deal of amusement as each day the USA takes a double-barrelled shotgun and shoots at its own feet. The Russkies have absolutely no need to destroy the reputations of POTUS candidates; they do it to themselves with superb panache.


#13

Without the methodology of American elections being so slipshod, any sort of hanky panky would be that much harder to accomplish.


#15

Remember moneyed interests are all people.


#16

The forty seven percent who didn't vote sat back.


#17

What I meant to add was that they are still people who have the same needs we do only they have more money. We as a society have to accept that the old dog capitalist system does not work anymore the way it did in post WW2.


#18

Yes, they did. Wasserman Schultz should be out of office- a vile woman.


#19

While Trump claims that Clinton received more than two million votes from voters who should not have been allowed to vote, he has no proof that she received one vote from such voters.

Meanwhile his new deputy national security adviser (no Congressional confirmation required) K.T. McFarland registered to vote in two locations and voted in both on November 8.


#20

Their choice was an oligarch and an oligarch wannabe. They voted by not voting.


#21

Katrina vanden Heuvel supported the election-stealing neocon warmonger Clinton, the global system of fascism's choice.

No, the "intelligence community" did NOT say that Russia hacked our elections. They have said they have NO IDEA who leaked the information. The parties at fault, whose crimes were exposed, were the ones who said it was a foreign country, and tried to deflect the information in those emails, which should have been public knowledge in the first place.

No surprises in the Wikileaks.org material? HA! Still trying to cover for the neocon Clinton, eh Ms vanden Heuvel - I'm not surprised. Guess you would have liked WWIII with Russia, and you might have benefited from TPP, also, with the wages of many workers lowered to compete with the "wages" of Chinese slave laborers.


#22

Yeah, Katrina did her Benedict Arnold impression and bailed on Bernie long before the California primary. Now she is a staunch progressive again. So confusing!