Nutty Stories About Ukrainian Interference

Wow!  It's been a long time since I last posted!  OK, on to the impeachment.

I must say that one thing that surprised me during this impeachment saga is talk about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.  I knew that Donald Trump and some conspiracy-minded right wingers denied that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.  I had just never heard Ukraine mentioned in that regard.

Let's start with the most basic fact that no one disputes because it took place so publicly as to be undeniable.  Wikileaks published e-mails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.  That is beyond dispute.  Also not seriously disputed is that goal of this was to hurt Hillary's campaign.  So, how did Wikileaks get the e-mails?

I was well acquainted with stories (many of the originating with Julian Assange, head of Wikileaks), that the e-mails were provided by Seth Rich, a murdered DNC staffer.  Such claims invariably hint, without quite saying, that Hillary then had Rich killed to silence him.* Realizing that their e-mails had been stolen, and guessing they would be revealed, the DNC then hired Crowdstrike (a cyber security firm) to fake evidence pinning the theft on a Russian hack.  Central to this claim was that the Democrats did not turn over their server to the FBI.**  In fact, there were some 140 DNC servers, and turning them over to the FBI would mean suspending operations.  Making an electronic image of the hard drives is actually superior to taking them into evidence, because the contents of the hard drives are constantly changing.  This is long-standing and accepted practice.***

So I was familiar with all this well before Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came out.  But I had never heard so much as a hint of Ukrainian involvement.  Where did that come in.  Apparently there is belief that the servers were taken to Ukraine.  The only evidence for such a belief appears to be that the founder of Crowdstrike has a Slavic name that might sound Ukrainian.  (Actually, it is Russian and he is a naturalized citizen).

I have seen many articles since the phone call came out debunking the theory.  The articles generally begin with the bizarre belief that Ukraine hid the server, explaining where the story might come from, and why it was not true.  All agree that the purpose of the theory was to clear Russia of hacking the DNC and claim that Ukraine framed Russia.  None of them address how, under this theory, Wikileaks came into possession of the DNC e-mails.  Given that Wikileaks deployed the e-mails so as to do maximum damage to the Clinton campaign, it seems reasonable to assume that someone stole the DNC e-mails and turned them over to Wikileaks.****

I could see two alternative theories here.  One is that there was no hack.  Seth Rich stole the e-mails and turned them over to Wikileaks.  The DNC, learning of the theft and fearing the stolen e-mails would come out, hired Crowdstrike to fake a hack.  And Ukraine somehow ended up with the server.  The alternate theory that I see suggested more than stated, is that Ukraine conducted the hack and then forged evidence blaming it on Russia.  But that makes no sense at all.  Since everyone agrees that the Ukrainians wanted Hillary Clinton to win, why would they turn over the e-mails to Wikileaks to deploy against her?

___________________________________________
*I used to think that was for fear that claiming Hillary had Seth Rich murdered was so over-the-top that proponents of the theories refrained from saying so for fear of looking ridiculous.  Now I am starting to suspect another motive.  US libel law makes it very difficult for a public figure (which Hillary obviously is) to sue.  But falsely accusing her of murdering a DNC staffer just might be enough.
**I was once so naive as to think that, while any evidence the FBI turned up could be dismissed as a "deep state" plot, the involvement of a private company would strengthen the DNC argument, but that ignores how the conspiracist mindset works.  If a private company found evidence of Russian hacking, the private company must be part of the conspiracy.
***This source is an article dated July 17, 2018 addressing the issue of the "missing" server.  The article makes no mention of Ukraine -- or Seth Rich, for that matter.
****I would take "handed over" to include handed over through an intermediary.  I suppose one could argue that someone stole the e-mails from the original e-mail thief and handed them over to Wikileaks, or that Wikileaks used the e-mails in a manner the thief did not intend.  But it seems most implausible.