A new angle on Russia is in order.
I’m not interested in spending more time on the legal facets of the case, about which I have always been light years ahead of everyone else.
All of the latest developments are playing out as I predicted.
Instead of tiresome legal minutiae, the new angle is a devastatingly effective one (effective, naturally, because I am the one who thought of it first): The angle is reframing the debate by simply replacing the word “attack” in “Russian attack on our election” with the word “joke” to yield “Russian joke on our election”.
This one substitution does nothing more nor less than challenge whether the “attack” qualifies as any kind of attack whatsoever. The factual justification for this challenge is that Russia’s election involvement had no impact whatsoever on the election results.
The word “attack” is associated with negative consequences that deserve legal punishment.
The word “joke” is associated with no consequences (or, at most, negligible ones) that deserve no legal consequences. Lacking negative consequences from our Russian jokesters, the joke will get more of a shrug from the public than it has already received.
Factually, this reframing of the debate has the virtue of being completely true. The main reason Russia’s negligible online stunts are being blamed for Hillary’s loss is because Progressives yearn to deflect blame from themselves with a self-serving excuse (Putin!) for defeat.
Fundamentally, this reframing of a “Russian attack” into a “harmless Russian joke” is devastating to the investigation because the assumption behind the “investigation” is that something harmful resulted from Putin’s good-natured fun.
Since Russia’s actions were an ineffective practical joke that failed to influence a single vote, instead of an “attack”, whatever electoral activities Russia engaged in for the 2016 election rightly downgrades its importance because no self-righteous investigation will admit the crime being looked at is only a joke.
The alleged electoral horse play (none of which was instigated by Trump since Russia did not need Trump’s permission to order Russian agents to follow Putin’s orders) consists of two points –
- Hacking into the emails of Democratic operatives
- About $2 million were spent by Russians on Twitter & Facebook ads
None of them had electoral impact.
The hacked emails swayed no votes because they told us nothing about Clinton’s political operation that wasn’t publicly known (except for peculiar references by Clinton advisors to “pizza parties” that may be code for drugs, John Podesta molesting children in the basement of a pizza parlor, or pizza).
Moreover, there is no evidence this joke phishing attack was coordinated with the Trump campaign, which the recent Mueller indictment of Russian agents admits to.
As for the Twitter and Facebook ads, the first thing to keep in mind is that it is not illegal for foreigners to buy campaign ads on private media platforms. Russia did not need Trump’s cooperation to buy the ads nor has any proof appeared to indicate Trump cooperated in this respect.
Technically, there is no law against ISIS or North Korea buying political ads on Twitter and Facebook aimed at American voters, only laws preventing foreigners from coordinating political help directly with American campaigns.
In terms of powers of persuasion, Russia’s Twitter and Facebook ads (such as Hillary arm-wrestling Jesus) were failures thanks to their ridiculous nature.
Those $2 million spent on ads were also dwarfed in scale by Hillary’s $1.2 billion in official campaign spending; spending that, by the way, doesn’t include at least $10 billion in free advertising given to the DNC by the the world’s mainstream media in the form of overwhelmingly positive coverage of Hillary and negative coverage of Trump.
Against those many billions of Clinton cash, blaming a measly $2 million worth of social media ads is more than ridiculous enough to justify labeling Russia’s contribution as nothing more than a harmless joke.
And, since we have Joe, Franklin, & Vladimir in attendance because they were so humored by the hypocrisy of Progressive fury about alleged Russian espionage, we can’t resist pointing out additional Progressive hypocrisy for simultaneously obsessing over Russia’s election jokes while believing in a borderless world.
If borders are a meaningless concept in the minds of Mueller’s desperate groupies then Putin is an American citizen with the full legal right to participate and influence our elections with online advertising as is every other US citizen; every patriotic American from the Islamic State’s Al-Baghdadi to Kim Jong Un.
Especially when those online platforms pride themselves on being “global” citizens: In that case their electoral potential should be accessible to the rest of the global “citizenry”, one of whose residents is none other than Vladimir Putin.