It does not matter one iota who supplied Wikileaks with DNC e-mails. It doesn’t matter if they came from a DNC staffer, the Russians or the man in the moon. The election is not made illegitimate because of these e-mails, no matter what their transmission mechanism to Wikileaks. We cannot say that they “interfered” with the election or that their sender interfered with the election. The word “interfere” simply does not apply in this instance.
The word “interfere” occurs in conjunction with the idea that “Russia interfered in the election of 2016”. Interfere has two main meanings. First,
“prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly”. [Example]
“a job would interfere with his studies” synonyms: impede, obstruct, stand in the way of, hinder, inhibit, restrict, constrain, hamper, handicap, cramp, check, block…”
Whoever hacked into the DNC or otherwise (as in a leaker who had access) laid their hands on and then released e-mails didn’t impede, obstruct, stand in the way of, hinder, restrict, constrain, hamper, etc. the election in any way. Information came out. Had someone released misinformation, that may have stood in the way of a proper election; but the e-mails, even if improperly gotten, were not misinformation. They were real. We do not routinely read articles saying that the e-mails were phony. The election was carried out properly, the release of the DNC e-mails doing nothing to prevent the entire process from continuing or being carried out properly.
The other main alleged interference is suggested in a leaked NSC memo. Whoever did this didn’t impede, obstruct, stand in the way of, etc. the election either. They were on a fishing expedition (spearphishing) or they were trying to learn about the system, for any number of reasons, but they didn’t block or check or handicap the election. In addition, the report says that this effort didn’t affect votes or vote-tallying.
There is a third area of possible information, trolls and internet chatter, that is speech or noise. This could be interference if there is a systematic campaign of lies and information being conducted. My impression is that this arena of the election contests is shadowy and hard to decode. It awaits scientific study.
The second meaning goes like this:
“take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity. [Example] “she tried not to interfere in her children’s lives” synonyms: butt into, barge into, pry into, intrude into, intervene in, get involved in, encroach on, impinge on…”
This definition is broader. The ‘activity” doesn’t have to be prevented; it need only be butted into. An election has many component activities. Intruding into any one of these without invitation or necessity is interference. Are the e-mail release and the foray into the voting system interference under this definition? The spearphishing is interference. It’s definitely uninvited and not necessary. It’s more serious than e-mails being released because it shows vulnerabilities in the system that could be exploited in the future. On the other hand, it was not known to the public at the time and didn’t influence vote tallies. This intrusion didn’t alter the outcome or undermine the legitimacy of the election.
Who is to say what’s invited into an election or what’s necessary to it and what’s to be excluded and labeled as an intervention? A great deal of chatter is going on. A great many events are taking place over a long period of time. Millions of minds and votes are involved. Into this sea of contention falls the release of rather obscure e-mails that most people do not read and cannot figure out. The press comes in and does the interpretation, which may or may not be accurate. The e-mails themselves provide information that may influence some votes; but the information is real and warranted. Can we say that the e-mails are any less invited or any less necessary than any other part of the election process? I don’t think we can, because the election is an activity that comprises lots of free speech. We cannot maintain that the e-mail releases were an intrusion. They were part of a process of free speech and persuasion as much as many other parts were.
Most of the ink spilled over the DNC e-mails has been a contest over whether or not the Russians interfered in the election. No matter who obtained these e-mails and released them, it was not election interference, by either definition of the word “interfere”. The spearphishing that occurred was interference, but it made no impact on the election at all. Was that of Russian origin? The NSC says it was, but it can’t say how it knows without revealing techniques it wants to keep secret. We on the outside do not know.
The other election angle alleging Russian interference is the idea that Trump or his associates colluded with Russians. The evidence to date is that this charge is complete baloney. A case can be made that those who concocted the dossier on Trump, certain FBI officials and certain CIA officials who launched and conducted certain investigations, and certain media went noticeably beyond the limits of proper speech and action, thereby interfering in the election.
8:49 am on July 1, 2017
