U.S. Politics

[Tom Graves]

Still no evidence the Russians affected the outcome of the election in either 2016 or 2024.

I thought you said the Russians didn't try harder than usual to interfere in our 2016 election?

Did they want Hillary to win?



Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

[John Corbett]

I thought you said the Russians didn't try harder than usual to interfere in our 2016 election?

Did they want Hillary to win?



Libertarians are the worst.

Especially pro-Trump Libertarians.

That's interesting. I don't recall saying that. I don't recall even thinking that. I have no idea whether the Russians tried any hard in 2016 and 2024 to meddle in our elections than they had in the past. The growth of social media gave them a tool that they didn't have before and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they tried to exploit that. That doesn't change my view that the Democrats' accusations of Russian meddling are nothing more than excuses for their own failings. They nominated lousy candidates who the American electorate rejected. Both had a history of past failures in presidential elections. Hillary failed in 2008 and Kamala failed in 2020. For some reason the Democrats thought they were the ideal candidates in 2016 and 2024. Actions have consequences and the Democrats paid the price for their poor choices in those two election years.

The Democrats aren't alone in failing with recycled candidates who had failed in the past. Dole failed in 1988 but got nomination in 1996. McCain lost to George W. Bush in 2000 but was given the nomination in 2008. Romney lost to McCain in 2008 but was nominated in 2012. Losing shouldn't automatically disqualify a candidate for future elections. Nixon won in 1968 after losing in 1960. Reagan failed in 1968 and 1976 before winning consecutive landslides. The parties should at least ask themselves if the candidate or the circumstances were responsible for past failures. In the cases of Hillary and Kamala, I think the answer is obvious.

[Tom Graves]

I have no idea whether the Russians tried any hard in 2016 and 2024 to meddle in our elections than they had in the past. The growth of social media gave them a tool that they didn't have before, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they tried to exploit that.

ME: Since WW II, has the Kremlin wanted a candidate to win a presidential election more than Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016?

GROK: No, according to U.S. intelligence assessments, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reports, and historical analyses of Soviet/Russian active measures, the Kremlin has not wanted any U.S. presidential candidate to win more intensely than Putin wanted Donald Trump to win in 2016.

Why 2016 Stands Out

The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and Senate reports (especially Volume 5) concluded with high confidence that Vladimir Putin personally ordered an aggressive, multi-faceted influence campaign. Its goals were to:

Denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton’s electability.

Help Trump win, driven by a “clear preference” for him.

Tactics included GRU hacking and leaking (DNC/Podesta emails via WikiLeaks), a massive Internet Research Agency social media disinformation effort (reaching over 126 million on Facebook alone) and probing of election infrastructure. This was described as unprecedented in scale, sophistication, and aggressiveness compared to prior Russian efforts. Putin later openly acknowledged wanting Trump to win because of his signals on improving U.S.-Russia relations.

Historical Soviet/Russian Efforts (Post-WWII)

The Soviet Union and later Russia conducted "active measures" (disinformation, propaganda, influence ops) in multiple U.S. elections, but none matched 2016 in intensity or direct personal direction from the top leader:

1960: Khrushchev feared hawkish Richard Nixon and authorized efforts (including diplomatic feelers) to help John F. Kennedy. Offers of aid were rebuffed; the operation was limited.

1968: The KGB opposed Nixon and secretly offered funding to Hubert Humphrey (who declined). Again, no large-scale campaign.

1984: Andropov/KGB planned "active measures" to defeat Ronald Reagan (e.g., slogans like “Reagan Means War!”), but Reagan won in a landslide with little apparent impact.

Other cases (e.g., against Barry Goldwater in 1964 or Henry “Scoop” Jackson) involved disinformation but remained smaller in scope and effect.

These Cold War efforts relied on traditional tools (propaganda, forgeries, limited covert aid) and were generally less resourced and less personalized than Putin’s 2016 operation. Historians and declassified accounts describe them as persistent but often unsuccessful and not on the same level of commitment or sophistication.

Key Differences

Motivation: In 2016, Putin had a deep personal grudge against Clinton (her 2011 comments on Russian protests, sanctions) plus strategic hopes for a Trump administration more favorable on issues like NATO and sanctions.

Capability and Execution: Mature social media and cyber tools enabled unprecedented reach—something unavailable or far less advanced in earlier decades.

Leadership Involvement: Putin’s direct ordering and the campaign’s scale set 2016 apart; earlier Soviet leaders authorized ops but without the same level of sustained, high-level personal investment or success in execution.

In short, while the Kremlin has long sought to influence U.S. elections to favor (or harm) candidates perceived as better (or worse) for Soviet/Russian interests, no prior instance matches the intensity, resources, and personal stake Putin placed on helping Trump defeat Clinton in 2016. Official U.S. assessments consistently describe 2016 as a high-water mark for Russian election interference.

ME: Why did Putin want to, as you say, "denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton’s electability in 2016"?

GROK: Putin wanted to denigrate and harm Hillary Clinton’s electability in 2016 for a combination of deep personal animosity and strategic geopolitical reasons.

Personal Animosity (The Main Trigger)

The roots trace back to 2011–2012, when Clinton was U.S. Secretary of State:

Massive protests erupted in Russia after parliamentary elections widely seen as fraudulent. Putin blamed the unrest on Western (especially U.S.) interference.

Clinton publicly criticized the elections as “neither free nor fair,” expressed support for the protesters’ “rights and aspirations,” and called for a full investigation. Putin accused her of “sending a signal” to the opposition and instigating the demonstrations.

He viewed her comments as direct meddling in Russia’s internal affairs and a personal threat to his power. This incident left a lasting grudge — Putin saw Clinton as someone who had tried to undermine him.

This personal vendetta was widely reported at the time and later confirmed in U.S. intelligence assessments.

Strategic and Policy Reasons

Beyond the personal level, Putin saw Clinton as a continuation of a hostile U.S. policy:

She strongly supported sanctions on Russia after the 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in Donbas.

She was viewed in Moscow as hawkish on NATO expansion, democracy promotion, and confronting Russian actions in Syria and elsewhere.

A Clinton presidency was expected to maintain or intensify pressure on Russia, whereas Trump signaled a desire to “get along,” question NATO’s value, and pursue transactional deals.

The 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reports concluded that Putin personally ordered the influence campaign with two main goals: harm Clinton’s chances and help Donald Trump, driven by this “clear preference.”

In short, it was both personal payback (Clinton’s 2011–2012 criticism) and strategic self-interest (avoiding a tough, anti-Russia president while betting on a more accommodating one). The campaign combined hacking/leaking (DNC/Podesta emails) with a large-scale social media disinformation effort to amplify divisions and damage her image.

"Beyond the personal level, Putin saw Clinton as a continuation of a hostile U.S. policy."

ME: Given what we were talking about, above, who was more hostile: the Kremlin towards Estonia in 2007, Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, and the anti-Assad citizens of Syria from 2015-on, or Hillary Clinton towards the Kremlin?

GROK: The Kremlin (under Putin) was far more hostile in its actions toward Estonia (2007), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014), and anti-Assad forces in Syria (2015 onward) than Hillary Clinton ever was toward the Kremlin.

Russian Actions: Direct Aggression and Violence

Estonia 2007: Russia orchestrated a massive cyber attack (one of the first major state-sponsored DDoS campaigns) against Estonian government, banks, and media after Estonia moved a Soviet-era war memorial. This was a deliberate attempt to destabilize a NATO member through hybrid warfare.

Georgia 2008: Russia launched a short but full-scale military invasion, occupying parts of Georgia and recognizing the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent. This involved kinetic warfare, displacement of civilians, and permanent territorial changes.

Ukraine 2014: Russia seized and annexed Crimea by military force (using “little green men”), violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. It simultaneously armed and supported separatists in Donbas, sparking a war that killed thousands and displaced millions.

Syria 2015 onward: Russia launched a direct military intervention to prop up Bashar al-Assad, conducting airstrikes and ground support that helped the regime retake territory. This included attacks on anti-Assad rebels and civilians, contributing to massive humanitarian suffering.

These were concrete, often violent actions involving military force, territorial conquest, cyber warfare, and support for proxy conflicts. They reshaped borders, killed people, and directly challenged the post-Cold War order.

Hillary Clinton’s Stance: Rhetorical, Diplomatic, and Policy Opposition

Clinton, as Secretary of State (2009–2013) and later presidential candidate, was indeed tougher on Russia than some in the Obama administration:

She publicly criticized Russia’s rigged 2011 parliamentary elections and supported protesters’ rights, which Putin saw as interference and a personal affront.

She advocated a harder line during the “reset” policy, pushed for sanctions after Crimea, compared Putin’s actions in Ukraine to Hitler’s in the 1930s, and supported arming Syrian rebels (opposing Russia’s backing of Assad).

She favored stronger responses to Russian aggression, including potential no-fly zones in Syria (which risked escalation with Russian forces).

Her positions were verbal criticism, diplomatic pressure, support for sanctions, and advocacy for aiding Russia’s adversaries — all within the bounds of normal great-power competition and support for international norms/sovereignty. She did not order invasions, annexations, cyber attacks on Russian infrastructure, or direct military campaigns against Russian territory or forces.

Clear Asymmetry

Russia’s hostility involved kinetic and hybrid warfare, territorial revisionism, and direct military intervention against sovereign states or opposition groups.

Clinton’s hostility was primarily policy disagreement, public criticism of authoritarianism/election fraud, and support for diplomatic/economic tools (plus limited lethal aid proposals in some cases).

In terms of scale, severity, and consequences, the Kremlin’s actions were orders of magnitude more aggressive and hostile. Clinton’s rhetoric and policy preferences were reactive responses to Russian behavior, not initiations of comparable aggression. Putin framed Clinton as an existential threat partly because she symbolized Western pushback against his revanchist moves, but the actual record shows Russia as the actor repeatedly using force to change facts on the ground.This asymmetry is why U.S. intelligence assessments described Russia’s 2016 campaign as driven by Putin’s personal grudge and strategic desire to avoid a president who would continue confronting his actions in Ukraine and Syria.

[John Corbett]

It should be pointed out that a congressional committee also found that there was likely a conspiracy to assassinate JFK so findings of such committees should be taken with a grain of salt.

Putin did have reasons for wanting Hillary to lose the 2016 election that had nothing to do with Trump. As Obama's Secretary of State, she was highly critical of the results of the Russian election which Putin had won, and he accused her of fomenting dissent. It's not at all surprising that Putin angered by Hillary's meddling in Russian politics would respond in kind in 2016, and that would have been true no matter who the Republican nominee was.

I find it quite humorous that US officials are feigning outrage at Russia meddling in our elections given our own history of meddling in the elections in other countries, including Russia's.

https://jasondarensburg.com/2025/06/26/the-long-history-of-us-meddling-in-foreign-elections/

Accusing the Russians of meddling in our elections is tantamount to us accusing the Russians of cheating better than us.

[Tom Graves]

It should be pointed out that a congressional committee also found that there was likely a conspiracy to assassinate JFK so findings of such committees should be taken with a grain of salt.

Putin did have reasons for wanting Hillary to lose the 2016 election that had nothing to do with Trump. As Obama's Secretary of State, she was highly critical of the results of the Russian election which Putin had won, and he accused her of fomenting dissent. It's not at all surprising that Putin angered by Hillary's meddling in Russian politics would respond in kind in 2016, and that would have been true no matter who the Republican nominee was.

I find it quite humorous that US officials are feigning outrage at Russia meddling in our elections given our own history of meddling in the elections in other countries, including Russia's.

https://jasondarensburg.com/2025/06/26/the-long-history-of-us-meddling-in-foreign-elections/

Accusing the Russians of meddling in our elections is tantamount to us accusing the Russians of cheating better than us.

Putin "won" that election and Trump "won" the 2016 election only with Putin's help.

[John Corbett]

Putin "won" that election and Trump "won" the 2016 election only with Putin's help.

Please show your evidence that Trump would have lost without "Putin's help".

Can't do it?

Didn't think so.