The alleged, purported, supposed Russian hack of the 2016 US presidential election is now a “fact”. Or so says the US CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). The US Government and its lapdog mainstream media (led by the now disgraced and lying Washington Post) are continuing to push the Russian hack theme, hoping to cement the concept in the minds of the populace. The Post article is making claims which are predicated on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who are in turn making their own claims about what the CIA has supposedly confirmed and concluded – but all in secret. You can’t see it because it’s “classified” and “national security”.
Let’s Refresh Our Memory About the CIA
Before we go any further, let’s remember who we’re dealing with here. The CIA is a dark and nefarious organization that has spent most of its existence illegally running drugs and weapons, experimenting with drugs like LSD on its citizens, conducting mind control on innocent victims (e.g. MK Ultra), overthrowing foreign governments (regime change), sending out hit squads to murder political opponents and conducting assassinations of whoever gets in its way (e.g. popular US presidents). It is no stranger to deceit, psychological operations and information warfare. The CIA started getting out of control in the Eisenhower-Dulles days of the 1950s, where it started doing whatever it wanted, with a practically unlimited budget and practically no accountability. Not much has changed since then.
Yet, the CIA is hoping that just because it is part of the government and has a nice flashy logo that you will believe what it says. CIA agents are trained as professional propagandists; day and night, they coolly and calculatedly lie. It’s all fair. It’s all legal. It’s all part of the job.
This Isn’t Russian Propaganda – This is US Propaganda
It’s so important these days to do your research and think about things carefully. Remember the tendency people have to avoid blame and scrutiny by accusing others of the very thing of which they are guilty? Isn’t this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Consider what some of the leading Alternative Media websites have already said on the issue. In October, Zero Hedge featured the article NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia, which pointed that Hillary Clinton was lying when she falsely claimed that all 17 US Intelligence Agencies agreed that there was a Russian hack and interference in the US election:
“Instead of answering the question, Clinton blamed the Russian government for the leaks, alleging “[t]he Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans,” hacking “American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions … in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.”
Following the claim, Clinton criticized Trump for saying “[Clinton] has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else,” repeating her assertion that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the Russian government had been behind the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hack.
Despite her claim, reality couldn’t be more different.
Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” Without offering any evidence, these two — not 17 — agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.”
So far, there’s nothing, except beliefs and opinions. No credible evidence. No tangible proof. No forensic evidence. Nothing.
NSA Whistleblower William Binney Weighs In on the Supposed Russian Hack
Here’s what Alternative Media site Washington’s Blog wrote in its article Did Russia Hack the DNC … Really?:
“Only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies [as Hillary Clinton had claimed]. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks
“. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts …”
Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.”
They actually contacted former NSA whistleblower William Binney directly. Binney is a 36-year veteran of the NSA who was so good he was actually thought of as the NSA’s best ever analyst and codebreaker. Binney worked at the NSA at a time when the US was decrypting the Soviet command system. He rejects the idea that Russia would have used a known hacking method to gather and then leak the information. Instead, he believes that if the Russians really had wanted to do it, they would have used a hidden hacking method. Meanwhile, proof is still lacking:
“If the idiots in the intelligence community expect us to believe them after all the crap they have told us (like WMD’s in Iraq and “no we don’t collect data on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans”) then they need to give clear proof of what they say. So far, they have failed to prove anything.
Which suggests they don’t have proof and just want to war monger the US public into a second cold war with the Russians.
We asked Binney:
What if the intelligence community spokespeople say “we can’t reveal the evidence we have that the Russians did it, because that would reveal our sources and methods?”
If you recall, a few years ago they pointed to a specific building in China that was where hacks on the US were originating. So, let’s see the same from the Russians. They don’t have it. That’s why they don’t show it. They want to swindle us again and again and again. You can not trust these intelligence agencies period…”
WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Rejects Idea of Russian Hack
Then, we also have the statement of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who explains he was not trying to sway the US election, but rather published material as it came to him. All he had at that point (and maybe still does) was material on Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson:
“Yet, some weeks ago, in a tactic reminiscent of Senator McCarthy and the red scare, Wikileaks, Green Party candidate Stein, Glenn Greenwald and Clinton’s main opponent were painted with a broad, red brush. The Clinton campaign, when they were not spreading obvious untruths, pointed to unnamed sources or to speculative and vague statements from the intelligence community to suggest a nefarious allegiance with Russia. The campaign was unable to invoke evidence about our publications—because none exists.”
Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray Calls CIA Claims “Bullshit”
Additionally, Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, demolished the CIA propaganda. He was quoted in an article which was only live for 3 hours before it was ripped off the web:
“Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. “America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.””
Glenn Greenwald Destroys CIA Propaganda
“Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Needless to say, Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year …”
It all comes back to the lowest common denominator. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? All we have are anonymous assertions:
“Beyond that, what makes claims from anonymous sources so especially dubious is that their motives cannot be assessed. Who are the people summarizing these claims to the Washington Post? What motives do they have for skewing the assertions one way or the other? Who are the people inside the intelligence community who fully ratify these assertions and who are the ones who dissent? It’s impossible to answer any of these questions because everyone is masked by the shield of anonymity, which is why reports of this sort demand high levels of skepticism, not blind belief.
Most important of all, the more serious the claim is — and accusing a nuclear-armed power of directly and deliberately interfering in the U.S. election in order to help the winning candidate is about as serious as a claim can get — the more important it is to demand evidence before believing it. Wars have started over far less serious claims than this one.”
Turf War: CIA-FBI Feud
Greenwald also points out that we are witnessing a turf war between the US Intelligence Agencies, with the CIA and NSA in one corner supporting Clinton, and the FBI in the other corner supporting Trump. Hence the CIA assertion that Trump is Putin’s agent and other ridiculous stories (to help Clinton), and the FBI’s attempts (albeit half-hearted thanks to back-and-forth Comey) to investigate Clinton over her emails (which helped Trump). How much of the CIA’s “secret assessment” is because of this turf war?
Napolitano: US Intelligence Agencies Hated Hillary So Much They Hacked the DNC
It may be a turf war, but Judge Andrew Napolitano has another theory. In this video, he puts forth the idea that the agencies disliked Clinton so much (due to her negligence and recklessness in handling classified State information and intelligence) that they were prepared to sabotage her chances of winning by hacking the DNC and feeding it to WikiLeaks. Is this possible? Yes. If true, it would be another scenario in which the hack and leak had nothing to do with Russia.
Conclusion: Dangerous Neo-McCarthyism is Circulating
What we are really facing here is McCarthyism, or better put, Neo-McCarthyism. It’s the dangerous re-emergence of painting everything and everyone with whom you disagree as “red”, “Putin stooges” or “Russian agents”. It’s as hysterical as it is ridiculous as it is dangerous. Wars have been started over lesser things.
The “Russian hack” theme is all about perception control. The concocted Russian hack story provides the US with an instant enemy and at the same time exonerates the Clintons and the DNC from all the obvious cheating they performed. Yet, no matter how hard the Russian hack line is pushed, evidence can’t be generated out of nowhere. To date, there has not been one publicly produced piece of credible evidence showing proof of a Russian hack, which is why we’re being fed a secret assessment.
Odds are, Russia did not hack the DNC and there was no Russian interference in the US elections. It’s US propaganda not Russian propaganda about which we have to be most vigilant right now.