Did Russia hack the election? It’s a question that has been asked for two years now, but when closely examining the story we find that the general public still has no clear cut answer. At least not an answer that can be trusted unequivocally.
The mainstream media echos itself in a cacophony that unabashedly accepts a narrative fed to them by the directors of various intelligence agencies. What was the evidence fed to them that they believe so fervently?
It was circumstantial at best, and I believe also fueled with hatred towards Donald Trump. The media has taken as gospel the word of spies proven to be abject liars, a dossier paid for by the Clinton Campaign, the FBI covering it’s own botched investigation, and a Romanian hacker claiming the glory with no solid evidence that he was actually the perpetrator or even Russian.
Yet our media insist it was all the Russians because our intel agencies allegedly found Metadata written in Cyrillic (which could have gotten there any number of ways) and that government agents spied on Russians at the time a Russian cyberattack was being carried out at a totally different time and place. Clearly this was a conclusive connection! Personally I don’t believe it’s solid enough to conclusively prove anything.
It’s laughable that the media believes this story deserves zero scrutiny and should be taken as unmitigated truth because they say so. The whole issue is shrouded in a dark classified cloud. When you stitch the available facts and leaked intelligence together, it looks like a concerted agency coverup perpetuating a massive media distraction pinned on the liberal left’s most reviled figure as a scapegoat, Donald J. Trump. Fortunately, he’s not buying it either.
But after almost two years in office, and a relentlessly ongoing investigation by Robert Mueller, where is the evidence of Russian collusion by the POTUS? So far there still isn’t any. With Mueller set to wrap up his investigation after the November 6th mid-term elections there is a slim chance that could change. But I believe it’s highly unlikely.
A CREDIBILITY CONUNDRUM
Here are a few reasons making the Russian stories – and there are a few that are being conflated – less convincing. For starters, the fact that James Clapper, and John Brennan say “Russia hacked the election” should give any intellectually inclined individual pause for concern. That is, if their memory stretches back far enough to remember that these two men stood before congress and straight up lied about the mass surveillance of the American public. They (along with Obama for that matter) were proven to be liars by Edward Snowden after all. Perjury is no small criminal act they committed by flat out lying during their testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Yet, the liberal media has conveniently forgotten their almost unanimous call for then President Obama to fire both Clapper and Brennan. Opportunely, both men now make the gambit in that same liberal media proclaiming their united ire for the 45th president. They even have the temerity to call Trump a liar.
Simply put, the words of these abject liars carry zero credibility to the rational thinker. Ask yourself, can you trust an emboldened liar who covered their own ass then, to now tell you the truth because they couldn’t possibly be covering their ass yet again? As the old saying goes, “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.” Aside from the fact that they have to lie for a living, which is often requisite for keeping secrets, nothing these men will ever say is believable. There is a slim chance they could be telling the truth, but the Aesop fable of the boy who cried wolf springs to mind.
TO COLLUDE OR NOT TO COLLUDE
So what about all the other Russia collusion evidence? Assuming it can be trusted even though it was generated by the likes of the aforementioned liars, none of it conclusively proves the Kremlin was behind it. Remember though, there are multiple Russia hacking stories here.
Are we talking about where Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee? Is it where Russia hacked into Clinton’s server? Is it where Russia allegedly made fake Facebook accounts to peddle false information to sow doubt in our election integrity? With respect to Facebook, I don’t know a single republican that gets their news from meme’s, but I’m sure quite a few Russians made Facebook accounts. I’ve encountered quite a few of them myself on social media. Although, I’ve never looked at them seriously to determine my political leanings.
Ultimately we must be precise about which Russia stories we’re talking about. The media has failed to make accurate distinctions in their stories, opting instead to jumble them all together to obfuscate the truth.
I find it interesting that Guccifer 2.0 came forward to claim credit and brag about the hacking of the DNC. If you don’t remember, Guciffer 2.0 was a Romanian hacker the intelligence community – still run by the likes of Clapper and Brennan – claim is Russian because they found Cyrillic characters coded in metadata. One must wonder if they even considered that Romanians are bilingual and their country directly borders Ukraine? It’s not far fetched at all to postulate a Romanian would know how to use a Cyrillic typeset. Quite separately there had been alleged Russian spear phishing intrusions into American institutions by the likes of APT29. By the time the DNC was hacked, the contracted security vendor known as CrowdStrike was called in to investigate which stated they had turned up another hack intrusion by known Russian actor APT28. None of which linked back to Guccifer.
Why I have such a hard time believing this is actually unrelated to the Russian matter entirely. It has everything to do with the Wikileaks CIA Vault 7 dump. If you had the tenacity to dig through Vault 7, you would have found a number of CIA operations tactics which outline exactly how US intelligence agencies launch cyberattacks in Cyrillic to impersonate Russian state actors to deceive their targets into thinking Russia hacked them. Because our dissembling intelligence agencies possess this capability, President Trump is absolutely correct to be very cautious with publicly placing blame on the Russians.
If the CIA, and NSA can easily create a perfectly convincing hack that looks like the Russians, then why the hell should the American people believe our own Intelligence agencies didn’t hack into our own political parties because someone had an axe to grind? The Vault 7 wikileaks dump also outlined practices of building malware and releasing these cyber weapons of mass destruction onto the internet where any talented hacker could then take the malware and use it for their own nefarious purposes. If software like this were released online with Cyrillic metadata still implanted in it, anyone could have appropriated it and used it.
THE CLINTON CHINA CONNECTION
At this point we know that in 2015 the Intelligence Community Inspector General – headed at the time by Charles McCullough III – determined Hillary Clinton’s E-mail was hacked by China (not Russia) as Trump has repeatedly stated. The media accused Trump falsely of having no evidence for this. Yet it was the media’s fact checking that was factually wrong.
We also now know that the ICIG sent two officials Frank Rucker, and Jannet McMillian to meet with FBI investigators to inform them of the Chinese code creating and forwarding courtesy copies of classified information they found embedded in Clinton’s server during their investigation. We also know that a very biased Peter Strzok was one of the main officials the ICIG handed their discovery of the Chinese hack to. Strzok did not act on the information.
As the Clinton server scandal pressed on, James Comey (then head of the FBI) subsequently exonerated Hillary Clinton to cover up the botched investigation. Remember when he said the FBI didn’t find direct evidence her server was successfully hacked? He didn’t entirely lie, after all it was the ICIG that found the evidence that her server had been hacked. But partial omission of the truth is still a lie in the eyes of most. A few very bias FBI agents simply chose to ignore that evidence, and self preserving Mr. Comey simply told a partial truth. So what did that have to do with Russia? Nothing. It had to do with China and Hillary Clinton, but an alternative story had to be used to obfuscate what really happened.
So where did this Russian narrative come from? Let’s step back a couple years and remember Wikileaks founder Julian Assange dumped a treasure trove of Hillary Clinton’s Emails on us. The question of where Assange got these Emails from naturally came up. Conveniently the intelligence community had just the answer. It was the Russians!
In unison they testified that Russian hackers had succeeded in hacking the DNC, and thusly it became the media’s reality. Interestingly Jullian Assange continues to this day to decry Russian involvement in his acquisition of Podesta’s Emails. Let alone that there is now long forgotten evidence to support a supposition that the DNC may have been hacked from the inside by one of its own who then peddled the information.
Undaunted, the media’s big story was how the DNC was hacked by Russia, to peddle Clinton’s Emails to Wikileaks to place a thumb on the election scale in Trump’s favor. And it does make for a fantastic fake news story. With so many legitimately questionable holes in the narrative, it’s remarkable that the news media (which lauds its truth seeking nature) can jump to any conclusions.
After Trump won the election, the idea that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election and damage Clinton’s campaign got traction with no basis in reality and solely on the desire to damage Trump politically. To date, it’s true that a financially corrupt businessmen, a former Army Lieutenant general, lawyer in Trump’s circle, and a few other small fish have been tried and convicted of crimes relating to charges that had zero to do with Russia. Not to mention a few foreign Russians which may or may not have had anything to do with anything and will never see a trial, have laughably been implicated.
However, after two years there has been no evidence connecting Russian election meddling to Donald Trump’s victory. All the while Trump maintained that he “ran a clean campaign, there was no Russian collusion. This is a witch hunt!” So where did the intel community get their intelligence? If it seems like it came out of thin air, it did. Sort of. Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid Christopher Steele to produce a dossier alleging that Trump colluded with the Kremlin to damage Clinton and help him win the 2016 election.
The press, in their fervor to fan the flames of Trump hatred and use the Russian story, twisted a statement by Trump when he said “Sadly, Putin is a stronger president than Obama.” Which the media twisted into “Trump praised and loves Putin!” Considering Trump was actually issuing a rebuke toward Obama, the narrative was a laughable farce until half the country swallowed it. Since Obama was the press’s messianic anti-christ, clearly the truth had to be perverted to damage the one who had made them look foolish. And that of course, was Donald Trump.
The irony of the dossier is that it proves that the Clinton campaign, indirectly colluded with Russia to damage the Trump campaign. Is it really a wonder then that the democrats are so fervently beating the waters to a froth to hide the truth from being widely shown?
It’s out of political self preservation at this point that they keep the focal point of the Russian investigation on Trump. However ironic it may be, when Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal said, “it doesn’t pass the smell test,” what he smelled was the stink coming from his own party. However, the real shame in all of this is that the American public may never really know the truth of what has really happened.