The election is over and I had originally planned to stop posting on this appropriately named blog after the election ... but the election circus continues ... so I have more posts for the blog. And I'm not sure the circus will end after Trump takes office -- in fact I think it will continue for four years !
Democrats repeatedly lied about who was hacking them in the past, so we should AUTOMATICALLY assume they are still lying, or at least jumping to conclusions:
Dems. Claim: Russians hacked Sidney Blumenthal.
Truth: "Guccifer" was Romanian, and offended by being called Russian!
Dems. Claim: 17 agencies say it was the Russians.
Truth: At the time two agencies suspected Russians, 15 had no idea
Current Dems. claims (1, 2 and 3) seem like facts mixed with speculation:
(1) WikiLeaks published Podesta emails, hurting Clinton:
- Based on popular vote, how can we be sure Clinton was hurt?
- Clinton was helped by linking Trump to Russians/Putin BEFORE election.
- MSM ignored Podesta emails -- how many people knew details?
(2) Russian hackers frequently target US:
- No evidence Russians ever give away information they get.
(3) Russians wanted Trump to win, so they supplied WikiLeaks:
- More likely Russians wanted Clinton to win.
- Julian Assange says Russians did not supply WikiLeaks -- he has a reputation for telling the truth and never publishing bogus material. He already has a 'life sentence', with nothing to gain by lying.
(4) CIA confirms "consensus" of US agencies:
- Why no report, evidence or details?
- Anyone who believes the CIA / Obama Administration never lies is foolish.
- "Consensus" does not mean correct (government has "consensus" on climate change too = climate baloney).
The Democrats are going berserk after losing mid-west states Clinton was "sure" of winning and practically ignored during the campaign.
Reminds me of 2008 when Clinton was over-confident about beating Obama in the Democrat primaries ... and lost.
Post-election, Democrats are doing what they do best -- character attacking everyone who disagrees with them.
During the election they said Russia was trying to help Trump win, and he was friends with evil Putin, two character attacks intended to reduce Trump's votes, and they probably worked.
After the election, Democrats tried to deflect attention from hacked emails by claiming Russians hacked the DNC, gave the emails to WikiLeaks, and strongly implied Russian hackers cost Clinton the election.
I think the Democrats' claim is BS because absolutely no evidence has been presented to prove it.
My interpretation of the Democrat's claim: The more voters knew about Clinton and the DNC, from hacked emails, the less likely they were to vote for her.
The mainstream media covered the hacked emails for about 30 seconds for every five or ten minutes they covered the "Trump on the bus" secret video!
Only Fox News reported on WikiLeaks in any detail -- I had to do a lot of reading online to get information on the hacked emails for posts on this blog.
The hacked John Podesta emails made it even more obvious the Clinton Foundation is a massive charity fraud used by the Clintons to obtain most of the $260 million they reported as income from 2001 through 2015 ... plus free overseas 'vacations' for Bill.
False outrage about alleged Russian hacking deflects attention from unethical and criminal activity included in those emails.
I estimate that over 98% of Americans knew little about the emails before the election, and still know little.
Both Clintons should be in prison for charity fraud -- if they had been Republicans, I believe the Obama Justice Department would have put them there.
At first, Democrats claimed 17 government agencies blamed the Russians for hacking the DNC.
I looked into that claim at the time and found it was a lie: There were only two agencies SUSPECTING the Russians, not 17 agencies BLAMING the Russians.
When Democrats are not busy be outraged by something and launching character attacks -- which doesn't leave them much spare time -- they lie and mislead.
The coming climate change catastrophe hoax, which I cover in another blog, is nothing more than wild guess predictions of the future climate, misleading statements, and lies ... yet the hoax has been kept alive for 40 years.
I give the Democrats credit for consistently repeating their lies until people start believing them.
Here is more about the 'blame Russia' claim still being made today, which is allegedly a "consensus", according to the head of the CIA.
If this "consensus" is like the alleged climate change "consensus", which is a lie, then "The Russians Did It" is BS:
DETAILS:
(1)
The CIA has made no attempt to substantiate their claim.
There has been no report or evidence presented to anyone.
The CIA refuses to privately brief the House Intelligence Committee on evidence they used to make the "consensus" statement, assuming there is any evidence.
Meanwhile, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 intelligence agencies, said on November 17 that he had no "good insight" into how and when WikiLeaks received their information.
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said on 11/17/16:
"As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that."
(2)
Craig Murray is the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was also the Rector of the University of Dundee, and is now involved with WikiLeaks.
He said DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks were originally given to him by Americans who had authorized access to the information.
Murray also said Obama has been ruthless in his prosecution of whistleblowers, and the pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition.
Are we supposed to believe the CIA knows who the individuals are, but nobody is going to be arrested, extradited, or at least made subject to banking restrictions (used against specific Russian individuals living in Russia who can't be extradited)?
Craig Murray told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.
"Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians", said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com.
"The source had legal access to the information."
"The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks."
Murray is a controversial figure removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct -- he was later cleared of those charges, but left the diplomatic service anyway.
He said the leakers were motivated by "disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders."
Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C.
He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.
His account is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks.
Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities.
He suggested that Podesta's emails might be "of legitimate interest to the security services" in the US, because Podesta had communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.
"I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true," Murray said.
"Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents WikiLeaks published did not come from that."
Assange similarly disputed charges that WikiLeaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.
For three hours until it was removed, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page:
Craig Murray 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.”
(3)
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks said the leaks did not come from Russians.
"The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything," Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November.
(4)
A senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, but said they were one step removed from the Russian government.
No names or details were provided.
The Washington Post has always been heavily biased against Trump.
(5)
A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration's "Russian hacking" narrative.
Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA's "extensive domestic data-collection network," any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets.
The only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking.
If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and would know both sender and recipient.
Leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.
NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved -- data passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the US – is collected by the NSA.
These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network.
Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
MY CONCLUSION:
Two people claim to know the whistleblower (not hacker) source of the DNC and Podesta email leak.
WikiLeaks Julian Assange said Russia was NOT involved in getting DNC and Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks Craig Murray said the person was a Democrat who leaked the information to him in Washington DC
I believe them.
Why do I believe them?
Because In 10 years not one of tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks released to the public had its authenticity successfully challenged.
The claim that Russians hacked the DNC and released the information to help get Trump elected, with absolutely no evidence provided to prove that claim, can only promote conflict with Russia.
Shame on smarmy Democrats for throwing mud at Russia and Donald Trump.
This is yet another reason the Republicans will hold more elected positions in 2017 than at any time since the 1920s.
