There have been recent accusations of Russian interference in the US democratic process, primarily by Hilary Clinton supporters. The claims are that Russia uncovered evidence Clinton had been giving US Ambassador roles to her friends in exchange for money. Further charges against her included using her own email addresses whilst Secretary of State, instead of email set up on a secure government server. The latter charges were cleared up a few months before the election, she was censured and the case was dropped. Anyone else accused of these serious allegations would be remanded in custody, and certainly not allowed out on bail.
US claims of Russian interference aren’t so clear cut. First of all Julian Assange had already posted the information on the Wiki leaks site, amid claims that it was a Washington insider that had leaked the data. The FBI countered with a ridiculous dossier that could only muster vague accusations and innuendo toward hacking by Russia and failed to provide any evidence whatsoever. Hacking sources aren’t easy to verify, and if it were Russian elements that compromised US servers, it would be extremely difficult to prove. These people are extremely talented coders, many recruited from shady groups of hackers because they are the best at what they do.
The Americans don’t seem to be disputing the validity of the information gleaned from this leak, they seem to be complaining about the timing of the revelations being helpful for Trump to overcome Clinton. Interfering in the political process, they claim. If we turn the argument around, surely if they hadn’t been revealed, this would have interfered by helping Clinton to become President, would it not? Either way, if it’s true, how can the truth be detrimental to a political process?
We in the UK have been victims of interference lately, too. An Israeli ‘agent’ (for want of a better word) was caught on camera discussing the possibility of ‘taking down’ British politicians, presumably he meant just the ones that disagree with Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. Two names that were mentioned have been slightly critical of Israeli policies. Alan Duncan and Crispin Blunt were both named. They are openly gay and perhaps this is the reason Shai Masot (the Israeli official) seemed confident they could be brought down?
Masot also mention a £1million+ fund to pay for UK politicians to visit Israel on supposed fact finding missions. Bearing in mind, it costs less than a thousand pounds to fly to Israel, that’s an awful lot of visits. All these conversations, involving the pro Israeli lobbyists and Jewish organisation officials were caught on film by an Al Jazeera journalist working under cover.
Despite overwhelming evidence, the British government consider the incident closed. This is the same government that has roundly condemned Russia over it’s unproven ‘attempt to interfere’ in US elections.
So the US is furious because the truth came out about Hilary Clinton and the UK have accepted an apology from Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev for an Israeli national (who wasn’t an official diplomat, so he could have been charged with at least corruption) for boasting they could ‘get rid’ of virtually any British politician.
I suppose what this does demonstrate is that both US and UK citizens are absolute mugs…For very different reasons.