Controversy over Election 2016 and False Logic

Rhetoric and Allegation related to Russian hacking claimed
correlation to an impact on the US Presidential election seems to miss
interpret intelligence statements by the CIA. 
The premise of the rhetoric leads to false logical correlation.  The statements touted by the democrats are
attributed to the CIA are that the illegal hacking impacted the election.  The statement is that there was hacking.  If I understand the world today, the country
hack each other.  It’s the release of the
information to the public, not the tampering with voting.  If there was tampering with voting that is
one thing.  But the October surprise here
was Weiner and his wife laptop with all of Hillary’s emails backed up on it which
was really the reminder to the Nation that Hillary Clinton mishandled
classified information.  It was
highlighted for voters.  All
non-classified information would be subject to FOI but Clinton destroyed
it.  Remember that Obama and Clinton were
allowing the government to monitor US citizens telephone and electronic
communications.  But remember who put
that information out in the public – it was the New York City Police Department
and other Weiner investigators. 

Obviously the hacking of email accounts and servers
is illegal. Ask the Sarah Palin high school hacker.  However the information obtained could have
been obtained by bring a bill of discovery especially if the was fraud involved
which clearly there was at the DNC when the DNC officials were attempting to
rig the democratic convention.  The DNC
is a private entity and required to abide by the DNC rules. Giving questions to
one candidate in a debate over another candidate is certainly a form of rigging
or fraud on the public.  Further
Clinton’s public emails are public information and the misappropriation or
misuse of public information could be subject to several causes of action by
members of the public. It can be bothersome and time consuming but you have to
turn over.   

While the subpoena of webmail accounts is not
illegal according to the Justice department and its treatment of information
stored on systems not under the control of the users and/or based upon the
policy of the third party provider (i.e. google or yahoo) the information can
be easily and lawfully obtained.

As this relates to Hillary Clinton, her handling of
classified information, only illuminated or highlighted the reason why the our
national intelligence back up to the cloud by Hillary Clinton which included
national security classified information on a third party system in the Norwalk
CT data storage company Datto Inc.   Take
a look at Datto Inc., privacy policy from 2014 essentially indicates that it
will turn over information based upon a lawfully served subpoena. 

According to the New York Time September 28, 2013
article “disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months
about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning
Americans, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call for reining in the agency
and President Obama to order an examination of its surveillance policies.
Almost everything about the agency’s operations is hidden, and the decision to
revise the limits concerning Americans was made in secret, without review by
the nation’s intelligence court or any public debate.”  The NY Times stated that “the legal
underpinning of the policy change, she said, was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling
that Americans could have no expectation of privacy about what numbers they had
called. Based on that ruling, the Justice Department and the Pentagon decided
that it was permissible to create contact chains using Americans’ “metadata,” which
includes the timing, location and other details of calls and e-mails, but not
their content. The agency is not required to seek warrants for the analyses
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

To circle back to the logic did it impact the election?  No not really.  Does the release of public information or
information which relates to potential fraud claims or rigging claims which are
subject to investigation through a bill of discovery make people more informed,
probably not since they already made up their minds.  Remember there has been no denial that the
information is false or incorrect by the parties hacked.  The highlighting of the Clinton violations by
Weiner and his wife’s laptop as part of an investigation merely served as a
reminder not by a foreign government but by New York City Law Enforcement
during its investigations of Weiner’s predatory conduct of minors. 

Did the New York Times try to influence the
election?  Isn’t one if it major
shareholders a Mexican billionaire (actually one of the richest people on
earth) who has control over the Mexican government and its telecommunication
systems.  HMMM? 

Sarah Palin’s yahoo webmail account was hacked by
some high school kid back in 2008.   John Podesta email account was a gmail
account, or a web mail account like General Petraeus web mail account.  Podesta’s emails were certainly obtained
illegally but it was a poor choice knowing what he knew about web email
accounts.  Also remember this – who knows
if the Clintons “lost” or “destroyed” laptops and IPhones and Blackberries were
found by someone and the information obtained by turning them on.  Yes it is private and so was Billy Bush
conversation.  But a third party had it
so it went public. 

Does that information being made public change how
people voted?  Does that influence the
election?  Probably not.  The reason is the fact that the Electoral
College went one way based upon multiple states proving States rights are alive
– and the popular vote went the other way due to two large States New York and
California; these results tell us that the release of the information really
had no influence on the election. For those of us who looked at the polls read
the underlying data and those of us who could not understand why the polling
conclusions conflicted with the data – tells me- that there was no real
influence.    I will note the conclusions of the pollsters where
influenced by the releases of the hacked emails and the Weiner laptop but the
underlying data before and after in those polls was not really did not change, the
pollsters just over sampled and over emphasized certain data in their
conclusions, just look at the polling data on real clear politics, they just
did not balance the numbers.  I believe
based upon the proper weighing of the polling data, essentially my opinion is –
that this was why President Trump was saying that the election was rigged
because if he lost it did not jive with the actual polling data that his
campaign was collecting. 

Do hearing subject all of these sources to
re-disclosure for confirmation that the information is true, that the primary
was rigged and that the campaign manager has certain feelings about folks who
vote that is not flattering or that Wieners laptop should be sifted thru, WELL I
guess hearing would.