Talking about Russia’s fake news before the 2016 presidential election, the Senate Intelligence Committee heard from former FBI agent Clint Watts, insisting that Russian agents on twitter, Facebook, Google and other social network platforms spread propaganda and disinformation. Watts made it sound like it was an unprecedented event when, in fact, Russia frequently disseminates distorted information designed to advance the Kremlin’s agenda. “Through the end of 2015 and the start of 2016,” Russian sought to influence the U.S. election, said Watts. “Russian influence system began pushing themes and messages seeking to influence the outcomes of the U.S. presidential election. Russia’s overt media outlets and covert trolls sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views toward the Kremlin . . “ said Watts, saying nothing specific about Russian influence.
All the speculation about Russian interference in the 2016, no one on the House or Senate Intelligence committees can explain why, if Russian President Vladimir helped President Donald Trump, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton won nearly three million more popular votes. Watts suggests that garden-variety propaganda and disinformation influenced voters but only in the swing states where Trump cleaned up in the Electoral College. East and West Coast Democrat bastions like New York and California gave Hillary over a six-million-vote advantage against Trump. “They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary season and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed,” said Watts, wildly speculating why certain candidates did more poorly than other more Kremlin-friendly candidates.
Showing how off-the-wall Watts’ analysis, he said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) lost his home state because of his hostile views toward the Kremlin. “Sen. Marco Rubio in my opinion, you anecdotaly suffered from these efforts,” said Watts, not talking about Rubio’s many campaign gaffes and intemperate acts that cost him votes. Watts wants to blame Kremlin propaganda and disinformation for Rubio’s defeat, not his inept performance in presidential debates. When Gov. Christ Christie turned Rubio into malfunctioning robot in the Feb. 6, 2016 GOP debate at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, Rubio’s presidential hopes ended, despite hanging on until the March 15, 2016 Florida primary where he lost to Trump by 18%. Watts’ analysis that the Russian propaganda and disinformation upended Rubio’s presidential ambitions takes poppycock to new heights
Today’s Russian hysteria sweeping Washington turns any nonsense into rigorous debate. When you consider Watts using the Rubio example, it shows how far Russian experts stretch reality to the breaking point. Rubio has no one to blame for his loss but himself in the 2016 race. When he called out Trump for having “small hands” at a GOP debate March 3 in Detroit, Rubio’s campaign took a nosedive. Watts knows too little about politics to find an alternative explanation to this Russian theory. Whether Putin had a preference in the 2016 election as asserted by FBI Director James Comey March 20 before the House Intelligence Committee, it doesn’t mean Russian propaganda and disinformation influenced the U.S. election one bit. If Putin poisoned the U.S. election against Hillary, why did Hillary win nearly three million more popular votes? Comey chooses not to explain that.
Watts insists that the Kremlin’s propaganda machine pushed the story that the U.S. election was rigged. No one questioned Hillary’s democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) when he repeatedly insisted the primaries were rigged. If it weren’t for WikiLeaks reporting on alleged Russian hacking that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep.Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fl.) sabotaged Bernie in the primaries, the public would have been duped by Hillary’s primary victory. Wasserman-Schultz resigned her DNC post in disgrace July 24, 2016, one day before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Watts mentions nothing about how WikiLeaks exposed Democratic operative interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile for feeding Hillary debate questions in advance of the Oct. 9, 2016 CNN Town Hall Debate. Watts blames the Russians not Hillary or Brazile.
Watts testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today fans the Russian hysteria sweeping Capitol Hill. Russian propaganda and disinformation flows freely across the globe, no different than in previous elections in the U.S. and Europe. “Why did he [Putin] think he could get away with it this time?” asked Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “This is not new for the Russians. They’ve done this for a long time across Europe, but it was much more engaging this time in our election,” said Watts, admitting that Kremlin propaganda and disinformation is nothing new. Hillary’s Campaign Chairman John D. Podesta pushed the Russia theory of why Hillary lost the Nov. 8, 2016 election but only after blaming FBI Director James Comey fell flat. Russian experts, like Watts, tend to attribute all events to Russian actors, not thinking there are legitimate alternative explanations.
