The Donald doesn’t mince words: he’s called Hillary Clinton the 'worst Secretary of State' ever (and Barack Obama our worst President) – reckless and of poor judgment; divisive and someone who has done nothing in 30 years to help the middle or working class. He has said that the Ben Ghazi deaths are her fault. He says her other failures include a mess in Syria, a horrendous Agreement with Iran, and the growth of ISIS which he said she created!
Trump has belittled, smeared and excoriated every candidate he has come up against, including all the Republicans who vied for the GOP nomination. Every time he levels a charge, one only needs to know that he has projected his own short-comings onto his opponents. Why? Either he rids himself of feelings of inferiority because he can pretend that “they are worse than he is.” Or, he is projecting upon others what he so despises in himself – perhaps what others have thrown at him. Enough said at this point (but if you want to read a lot more about his worst charges and epithets against all manner of people and organizations, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0 )
So, let’s review a few of those circumstances as possible clues to what may have happened on election night.
- Trump’s admiration and praise of Putin; Putin’s praise and support for Trump for President of the US. In addition, the tightly controlled-by-government Russian media have made it quite clear that Russia supports the candidacy of Donald Trump.
- A broader story has also been put forward by some media of Trump’s relationship (and that of others on his team) to Russia and their leadership. There is also a rumor of Trump’s probable obligation to high-level donors from Russia’s millionaire class, from whom he has allegedly borrowed or received money. Just what might be requested of him from such lenders?
- And lest we forget, Donald Trump did call upon Vladimir Putin and his army of hackers (after the DNC incident) to aid in finding the missing 30,000 personal emails from Clinton’s private server!
- Polls from 15 polling organizations/individual pollsters at the 270towin.com website indicated a consensus on Nov. 8th that the night would belong to Hillary Clinton by a small but fairly comfortable margin. Only Nate Silver’s polling (FiveThirtyEight) gave as much as a 30% chance of winning to Trump.
- Then on Oct. 24th came a letter from the FBI Director, James Comey, to the committee heads and Party Leaders in the Senate, explaining the find of more Clinton personal emails on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop. This probably set off a trend toward Trump among undecided voters that was not seen in the polls. Another letter from Comey on Sunday Oct. 30th said there was nothing new in the emails and that the FBI’s stance of “no charges” taken in July would stand. But the damage was done by the first letter, and the Trump camp jumped all over it.
- Now recall the extraordinary Trump visits at the end of the campaign to the states that were traditionally Democrat blue, like Michigan and Wisconsin. Did the polls suggest that Clinton’s lead was vulnerable enough in those states to warrant these visits, or was there some other reason, like providing a cover for hacking into the vote count on Tuesday night making a Trump comeback and lead look like a trend rather than a hack? Although Clinton was still seemingly leading in each state, perhaps Trump camp data showed what Silver was seeing: that there were far “more undecided and third party voters than in recent past elections: About 12 percent of the electorate wasn’t committed to either Trump or Clinton in final national polls, as compared with just 3 percent in 2012."
- On Election night, a surge in Trump fortunes in certain traditionally blue states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin) threatened to change those Democratic states to Republican states (blue to red). The lead seemed to shift back & forth between the candidates as the votes came in from different areas of each state
- Indeed, late-deciding voters broke toward Trump, according to exit polls of most swing states. Or at least, that was the case in states where Trump outperformed his polls, such as in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
- Throw in New Hampshire (where the Democratic candidate for the Senate was leading the incumbent Republican) and the last-minute change in the lead in states like Georgia, Florida and North Carolina in the evening hours, and you begin to wonder what was really happening?
- Were those earlier hacks into voter records in Illinois and Arizona dry runs to help develop their voter record-hacking capabilities? Were hacks against the DNC and DCCC part of a broader plan, and maybe a dry run of a modified and improved cyber-attack software? Were they rehearsals for the big event of hacking into the actual presidential vote? Why haven’t more media outlets researched this possibility? Probably because it is very difficult to obtain information on such activity.
"The CIA has concluded that Russia mounted a covert intelligence operation to influence the U.S. election in an effort to help Donald Trump win, a congressional official knowledgeable on the matter told NBC News.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper briefed senators on the latest intelligence in a closed-door meeting last week, and he described the latest findings on the intentions of the Russian government with regard to the hacks and other interference in the U.S. presidential election, according to the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence.
A Washington Post report published online Friday night first described how the intelligence community has reached a "consensus" that Russia intervened in the presidential election to help Trump win — not just try to sow chaos and undermine the electoral process. The New York Times confirmed the story, as has NBC News.
Related: U.S. Intel Agencies Preparing Dossier to Prove Russian Hacks
Trump not only said he didn't believe the intelligence community's assessment — he suggested that the CIA was not to be believed in general, issuing a statement Friday night noting that "These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Related: U.S. Publicly Blames Russia for Hacking
Several intelligence officials told NBC News they were deeply disturbed by that statement. There is no historical precedent for a president-elect publicly maligning the intelligence agencies he is about to lead. One big question now is how Trump's pick as CIA director, Mike Pompeo, will bridge the acrimonious gap between his boss and the agency he leads.
President Barack Obama...has ordered that a dossier be assembled on the evidence about the Russian covert operation. A senior Obama administration official told NBC News that portions of that will be made public before January 20th.
Related: Hackers Target Election Systems in 20 States