I've spent the past few weeks studying the political jockeying underway. The rush of excited transition has only been eclipsed by the vicissitudes of defeat and the accompanying hand wringing. Credit is being taken and blame is being laid.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to observe has been the whole concept of the election being hacked. The second most interesting was the recount effort. Neither issue matched expectations of the political elite, which in itself is illuminating.
First, let's examine the notion of a hacked election. The supreme irony is that it was Donald Trump who warned about election manipulation. The Obama team simply disregarded the threat because they were confident that Secretary Clinton would win. That in itself is stunning. We should not be surprised that the Russians hacked the DNC and even the RNC. Nor should we be surprised that foreign governments attempt to influence our elections. The fact is that many have made serious efforts to do so in the past with varying effects. There was such an effort attempted by Democrats to join with Russia in defeating Ronald Reagan, for example. And, we shouldn't be so quick to point fingers. The Obama team openly funded efforts to sway the Israeli electorate. Even the LA Times admits that the United States has been attempting to influence foreign elections for years. And, are we going to claim that we have never hacked a foreign official? By the way, how disingenuous does it seem for the Clinton team to try to deny foreign hacking of her personal server with classified documents but to claim that the Russian DNC hacks swung the election?
Yes, a group tied to Russia (Fancy Bear) likely did access information at the DNC and RNC. But recognizing this is not quite the same as saying that the Russians were able to control our election. Nor does it change the embarrassing revelations of Wikileaks. For that matter, are we certain that it was the Russians who released the information? Wikileaks has been adamant to state the opposite. It is entirely possible to imagine that Russian elements hacked both parties but that someone else leaked the information. Perhaps this is why the FBI was so slow to support the theory.
In regard to the issue of the recounts, the apparent voter fraud in Michigan was simply glossed over. Early reports showed that ballot boxes registered far more votes than were actually cast. Apparently, this did not sway the outcome because these fake ballots appear to have added to Clinton's total. Had we found the opposite, this would have been international news. But in terms of actual ballots cast there, Trump clearly won. And in Wisconsin, the recounts favored Mr. Trump as well.
Now, we do have proof positive that there were serious and ongoing attempts to manipulate the electorate. We know this because of Wikileaks. It was the Democrat National Committee at work with efforts to first deny Bernie Sanders a fair shot at the nomination and later scheme with the media to deny Donald Trump a fair shot at the White House. These facts are indisputable. Which of course smacks of hypocrisy when blaming the Russians.
Speaking of hypocrisy, another prime example comes in the fact that the same Obama administration dismissed Mit Romney's claim that Russia was a threat but now makes Putin the prime boogeyman.
On a more personal level, I find it hypocritical and ironic that Team Obama becomes all upset about foreign election influence when they were so very dismissive of my research eight years ago. Stop for a moment and realize that in 2008, the stock market crash was the primary issue in the election that put the junior Senator from Illinois into the White House. And, realize that we demonstrated the tremendous foreign push that occurred just prior to our market and economy going over the cliff. Both our research and multiple subsequent studies demonstrated that there was a targeted nefarious effort against the market and that the market collapse determined the election outcome. Now, why wasn't that studied further? Oh, it was by the Pentagon and validated internally at multiple agencies. But politically it was squelched.
There is ZERO question of the connection between stock market performance and the election. If the stock market had collapsed in 2016 as it did in 2008, the Trump victory would have been a popular vote landslide.
And, the government has all but admitted that the stock market can be manipulated. We have documented that for eight years. But the "flash crash" case made against a single London-based trader seals the reality. If a single man living in his parent's house near Heathrow airport could trigger a $500 billion collapse in minutes, what could a nation state do?
Despite all of the evidence, there was an active effort to suppress the research, connections, and evidence that demonstrated a 2008 election "hack." That is beyond dispute. I lived it. And the effort came from very senior officials. A few patriots stood up and really listened to our concerns. One was Lt. General Michael Flynn, then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Another was the House Armed Services Committee followed by the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. Pockets within the FBI and CIA took notice as did elements in DARPA, IARPA, and others. But the politicians in the Obama team were more than a little afraid of the "narrative" that foreign subversion was part of his 2008 electoral victory.
Ultimately, after four years of getting the political runaround, I was approached by a publisher and we told the story to the American people. A rash of media appearances followed with denigrating claims of "conspiracy theory" and even a few threats against me and my family for speaking out. Fortunately, many top experts stood up to support our research. And, the word did get out, the book Secret Weapon: How Economic Terrorism Brought Down the U.S. Stock Market and Why It Could Happen Again reached NY Times Bestseller status. Amazingly, a mutual friend sent the book to Donald Trump who read it FOUR YEARS AGO and sent back an interesting note:
Over the past eight years, I've developed two very serious concerns. The first is that the political elite have made serious efforts to politicize the intelligence function. This is a critical threat to our freedom. The second concern is that there is an economic war already underway that is largely ignored by traditional politicians. I am very hopeful that both the President elect and his team are prepared to address both of these very serious threats. America's future depends upon it.