Tag Archives: 2016 election

Did the Russians Hack Hillary? by Andrew P. Napolitano

The infamous Democratic emails weren’t hacked, by Wikileaks, the Russians, or anyone else, they were leaked. From Andrew P. Napolitano at antiwar.com:

Earlier this week, leaders of the Democratic National Committee and former officials of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign made the startling allegation that the Russian government hacked into Clinton’s colleagues’ email accounts to tilt the presidential election toward Donald Trump. They even pointed to statements made by CIA officials backing their allegations.

President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?

Here is the back story.

The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies – God only knows the number of secret agencies – have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.

The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.

To continue reading: Did the Russians Hack Hillary?

Why the Democrats Can’t Let Go of Losing, by Charles Hugh Smith

FDR, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale wouldn’t recognize today’s Democrats, and once they did, they wouldn’t have anything to do with them. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

The Democratic Party has become everything it once was against.

Let’s get one thing straight right at the start: criticizing the Democratic Party and its ruling elites is not the same as “supporting Trump.”

The either-or accusation is a classic propaganda technique to silence dissent. During the Vietnam War, for example, anyone dissenting against the official narratives supporting the war was accused of “supporting the Communists.” In other words,criticizing the Powers That Be or their narrative is treason.

This either-or choice was designed to silence dissent by eliminating the possibility that domestic critics had valid reasons to disagree with the war that had nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with America.

Now we hear the same propaganda technique being wielded by Democrats:any criticism of the Democratic Party is “supporting Trump.”

Hogwash. Any institution that can’t accept achingly obvious critiques is doomed. Resilient, confident people and organizations welcome fair criticism, as honest criticism (i.e. intended to improve performance and understanding) is essential to the process of successful adaptation to changing conditions.

So now that we’ve got that straightened out–criticism isn’t necessarily support for “the other side,” it stands or falls on its own merits–let’s nail down why the Democratic Party didn’t live up to expectations in the election.

To continue reading: Why the Democrats Can’t Let Go of Losing

The Conspiracy to Shut Down Truth, Donald Trump, and The American People, by Paul Craig Roberts

There has to be a word, stronger than hypocrisy, for when you act in way that’s not just the opposite of whatever it is you supposedly stand for, but in a way that absolutely repudiates it. On full display by all those trying to subvert the election is just such behavior, whatever you call it. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:

There is circumstantial evidence that the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the rest of the presstitute media are part of a conspiracy with the oligarchs, the military/security complex, the Hillary Democrats, and neoconized Republicans to shut down the dissident Internet alternative media and to deny Donald Trump the presidency.

Consider the brand new website PropOrNot and its fake news list of 200 Internet Russian agents. PropOrNot is a website hidden behind multiple screens as would be an offshore tax avoidance scheme. In other words, no known, responsible entity is behind the site, which has libeled 200 other websites, or if it is, it is too ashamed of what it is doing to be associated with it publicly.

Consider the expertise and money required to shield the identity of an organization, whether tax avoidance or website. This is not something that just anyone can do. This type of Klingon cloaking requires real money or the CIA.

As long as it pretends to be a newspaper, the Washington Post is subject to journalistic ethics. But the PropOrNot story by Craig Timberg violated journalistic ethics. Unsupported accusations were leveled against 200 websites, a McCarthyism record.

How did a story, which would have been instantly quashed by editors in my day as a Wall Street Journal editor get past Timberg’s editor?

That is the question.

Here we have the Post committing libel against 200 websites, all of whom can sue for damages. There go Bezos’ billions.

Would a Washington Post editor of any intelligence have published such a libel-inviting story unless the owner, Bezos, gave the OK or the order?

How can the Washington Post feel secure in an act of libel?

To continue reading: The Conspiracy to Shut Down Truth, Donald Trump, and The American People

“Bullet In The Mouth” – Trump Electors Flooded With Death Threats, by Tyler Durden

Disappointed Hillary Clinton voters continue their random acts of graciousness and sensible reactions to Trump’s victory. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Electors around the country are being harassed with a barrage of emails, phone calls, letters and even death threats, in an effort to block Donald Trump from being voted in as president by the Electoral College on Monday. Of course, with the mainstream media and democrats pushing the dangerous narrative that Putin basically usurped our democracy, it’s no wonder that disaffected Hillary snowflakes are growing more “triggered” with each passing day.

According to a report from the New York Post, one Republican elector in Michigan has even received death threats after he refused to change his vote.

For Michael Banerian, a senior at Oakland University in Michigan and a Republican elector, the harassment comes with a dark side.

He said he’s been getting death threats via email, snail mail, Twitter and Facebook.

“Somebody threatened to put a bullet in the back of my mouth,” Banerian, 22, told The Post on Wednesday.

Republican electors from all over the country are being inundated with emails, phone calls and letters on a daily basis, from angry democrats, urging them to switch their votes. One Republican elector in Arizona estimated that she had received 50,000 emails since election day.

The bullying is overwhelming Sharon Geise’s tech devices, but not her resolve to support Trump.

The Mesa, Arizona, grandmother woke up Wednesday morning to more than 1,500 emails demanding she not carry out her legal duty to vote for the president-elect.

“They just keep coming and coming,” Geise told The Post, estimating she’s received more than 50,000 emails since the election. “They’re overpowering my iPad.”

Her answer: mass delete.

Despite the avalanche, she said, her decision to back Trump is stronger than ever.

“Obviously their minds are made up and they’re not going to change. I’m not either,” the soft-spoken Geise said.

To continue reading: “Bullet In The Mouth” – Trump Electors Flooded With Death Threats

There’s a Psy-OP, All Right, But It Isn’t “The Russians” by Daisy Luther

In a desperate bid to regain some relevance, if not the credibility, that it lost during the election, the mainstream media has lined up behind the Russia fabrication. From Daiy Luther at daisyluther.com:

Enough with “the Russians” already. This “Russian Disinformation” and “Russian Hacking” stuff is getting more ridiculous by the day.

First, don’t let the irony escape you that most, if not all, of the pundits breathlessly blaming the Russians for “fake news” and “election interference” are the very ones who were saying that Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for president. They’re the ones who were providing her campaign with questions in advance, and allowing her people to approve/disapprove of articles.

Secondly, many of the entities blamed for spreading “Russian propaganda” were the ones with the audacity to tell the truth about the Clinton crime family and spread knowledge of the information released by Wikileaks. Obviously, I’m not including those Macedonian college kids in this, but keep in mind that they weren’t doing it for the Russians – they were doing it to make money.

This isn’t about the Russians at all, which anyone with half a brain realizes is absolutely ridiculous.

Here’s what this really is.
This is a war on the Trump presidency. It’s an attempted coup.

Maybe it’s even another effort to outright steal the presidency from Trump. Maybe there’s someone with a lot of money to throw into this “OMG THE RUSSIANS” rhetoric who really hates Russia and who really wanted Hillary Clinton to be the President. Maybe his name rhymes with “Doros.” I don’t know this for sure, but it’s at least a more likely story than “The Russians” hacking our election and deliberately spreading propaganda.

To continue reading: There’s a Psy-OP, All Right, But It Isn’t “The Russians”

 

From Russia, With Karma, by Jack Perry

If you yell “Russian hackers!” long and loudly enough, maybe people will forget what it is they supposedly hacked. That’s the whole point of this exercise. From Jack Perry at lewrockwell.com:

Let me begin this article with a parable: Little Billy came crying home one day, went right up to his mother and cried out, “Mommy, mommy! Timmy punched me in the eye in front of the whole class! And now I’ve got a black eye! Do something, mommy! Do something!” But Billy’s mother said unto him, “Billy! What did YOU do to him to cause him to risk suspension from school by punching you in front of everyone like that?!”

Now, here we go again with the latest Election Gate scam from the Democrats and Establishment Republicans. Right, Russia must have hacked the election! They broke into the Democrats’ computers and revealed secrets. Because, gosh, that’s the only way Hillary could have lost the election, right? This smells suspiciously like the time the United States government hectored and badgered the Palestinians to hold elections and so they finally gave in and had elections. Then they elected Hamas and the United States sat there and bawled like five-year-olds that stubbed their toes and insisted the election was a fraud.

I have three things to say to the United States government: Karma, you reap what you sow, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How many times have you, U.S. government, boasted of toppling other governments through regime change? How many times have you demanded other countries bend to your will or risk being overthrown and having a U.S. puppet government installed? What, and if the regime change here is on the other foot through an election, now you want to sit and whine about it like babies that lost their pacifiers? No bedtime story for you!

How To INSTANTLY Tell If Russia Hacked the Election, by WashingtonsBlog

The NSA, according to Edward Snowden and William Binney, the man who designed the NSA’s surveillance systems, would know if Russia hacked the election. From washingtonsblog.com:

Anonymous CIA officials claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election by accessing emails from top Democratic officials and then leaking them to Wikileaks.

But the Washington Post notes:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.

***

A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks ….

***

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.” [The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee (Craig Murray) – who is close friends with Wikileaks’ Assange – said he knows with 100% certainty that the Russians aren’t behind the leaks.]

***

“I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

Indeed, some cybersecurity consultants claim that it’s impossible to ever know for sure who is behind hacks of this nature.

But that’s wrong …

In reality, it would be child’s play to determine whether or not the Russians really hacked the Dem emails and shared them with Wikileaks.

Specifically, Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails:

Edward Snowden ✔ @Snowden
Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy. I did this personally against Chinese ops.
Follow
Edward Snowden ✔@Snowden
Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.
8:03 AM – 25 Jul 2016

To continue reading: How To INSTANTLY Tell If Russia Hacked the Election

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence, by Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald is a voice of rationality in the fake news/Russian influence imbroglio. From Greenwald at the intercept.com:

THE WASHINGTON POST late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes — rather critically — that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” 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.

To continue reading: Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

A “Soft Coup” Attempt: Furious Trump Slams “Secret” CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win, by Tyler Durden

There’s not a shred of hard evidence that Russia made any attempt to influence the US election, just a lot of allegations and innuendo. Now various intelligence agencies are destroying what’s left of their reputations by dignifying the allegations and innuendo. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called “fake news” sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others.

To continue reading: A “Soft Coup” Attempt: Furious Trump Slams “Secret” CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

Image

The Recount Continues, from Zero Hedge