The new narrative: Exposing lies equals sabotage

On December 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that is the basis for the claim that the Russians "interfered' with the presidential election.  The report states in relevant part:

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE[.] ... In the course of that campaign, APT29 successfully compromised a U.S. political party. At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware. APT29 delivered malware to the political party's systems, established persistence, escalated privileges, enumerated active directory accounts, and exfiltrated email from several accounts through encrypted connections back through operational infrastructure.

This is government-speak to say John Podesta ("one targeted individual") opened a phishing email and was hacked.

Podesta's emails led to emails that showed that Hillary lied, that Hillary sold access to the State Department, and that Obama lied when he said he did not know that Hillary was using a private unsecured email server until he saw it on the news.

Hillary, Podesta, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats did not dispute the accuracy and veracity of the emails.

The FBI, CIA, and NSA made the following conclusion on January 6, 2017:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump[.]

Obama's CIA, FBI, and NSA appointees opine that Putin ordered hacking of Podesta's emails and leaked them to harm Hillary and help Trump.

How does releasing the truth about Hillary and Obama "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"?   The truth advances the democratic process, but it undermined the Democratic campaign of Hillary and the legacy of Obama.

How does releasing the truth about Hillary "denigrate Secretary Clinton"?  Releasing the truth about what she said and did hurt Hillary's image as a smart liar.  She got caught lying and selling access to the State Department.

Did releasing the truth about Hillary "harm her electability and potential presidency"?  If Hillary had been able to continue lying without getting caught, would she have gotten more votes in the battleground states?  The CIA, FBI, and NSA cannot explain why the released emails may have harmed Hillary only in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida, but not in California and New York, which gave Hillary enough votes to win the meaningless popular vote.

The opinions of the politicized intelligence chiefs should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

For example, the CIA helped Obama and Hillary push the lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video.  The CIA's talking points read:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

The FBI had difficulty concluding that Hillary acted with intent when she used a private email server, despite the mountain of evidence, but it can conclude that Putin acted with the specific intent to help Trump.

The latest example is Esteban Santiago, who killed five people and wounded eight during the January 6, 2017 attack at Ft. Lauderdale Airport.  Santiago went to the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska in November 2016 to tell the FBI that voices in his head were telling him to join ISIS.

The FBI, which participated in the reports mentioned herein, can read Putin's mind but did nothing about a man who walked into its office and said he wanted to join ISIS.  The FBI should have spent more time following up on Santiago instead of trying to help Obama explain away Hillary's loss, which damages his legacy.

The bottom line is, it does not matter if Putin and Netanyahu, and other foreign leaders, favored Trump.  It matters only that the America voters elected Trump.

There is no evidence that the Russians did affect the election.  At best, or worst, they tried by releasing truthful information about Hillary.  Had Hillary and Obama told the truth, then there would have been no reason to disclose the emails that contradicted the lies.  Having the truth about Hillary is good for our country but bad for Hillary and Obama.

On December 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security released a report that is the basis for the claim that the Russians "interfered' with the presidential election.  The report states in relevant part:

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE[.] ... In the course of that campaign, APT29 successfully compromised a U.S. political party. At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware. APT29 delivered malware to the political party's systems, established persistence, escalated privileges, enumerated active directory accounts, and exfiltrated email from several accounts through encrypted connections back through operational infrastructure.

This is government-speak to say John Podesta ("one targeted individual") opened a phishing email and was hacked.

Podesta's emails led to emails that showed that Hillary lied, that Hillary sold access to the State Department, and that Obama lied when he said he did not know that Hillary was using a private unsecured email server until he saw it on the news.

Hillary, Podesta, Obama, and the rest of the Democrats did not dispute the accuracy and veracity of the emails.

The FBI, CIA, and NSA made the following conclusion on January 6, 2017:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump[.]

Obama's CIA, FBI, and NSA appointees opine that Putin ordered hacking of Podesta's emails and leaked them to harm Hillary and help Trump.

How does releasing the truth about Hillary and Obama "undermine public faith in the US democratic process"?   The truth advances the democratic process, but it undermined the Democratic campaign of Hillary and the legacy of Obama.

How does releasing the truth about Hillary "denigrate Secretary Clinton"?  Releasing the truth about what she said and did hurt Hillary's image as a smart liar.  She got caught lying and selling access to the State Department.

Did releasing the truth about Hillary "harm her electability and potential presidency"?  If Hillary had been able to continue lying without getting caught, would she have gotten more votes in the battleground states?  The CIA, FBI, and NSA cannot explain why the released emails may have harmed Hillary only in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida, but not in California and New York, which gave Hillary enough votes to win the meaningless popular vote.

The opinions of the politicized intelligence chiefs should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism.

For example, the CIA helped Obama and Hillary push the lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by a video.  The CIA's talking points read:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.

The FBI had difficulty concluding that Hillary acted with intent when she used a private email server, despite the mountain of evidence, but it can conclude that Putin acted with the specific intent to help Trump.

The latest example is Esteban Santiago, who killed five people and wounded eight during the January 6, 2017 attack at Ft. Lauderdale Airport.  Santiago went to the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska in November 2016 to tell the FBI that voices in his head were telling him to join ISIS.

The FBI, which participated in the reports mentioned herein, can read Putin's mind but did nothing about a man who walked into its office and said he wanted to join ISIS.  The FBI should have spent more time following up on Santiago instead of trying to help Obama explain away Hillary's loss, which damages his legacy.

The bottom line is, it does not matter if Putin and Netanyahu, and other foreign leaders, favored Trump.  It matters only that the America voters elected Trump.

There is no evidence that the Russians did affect the election.  At best, or worst, they tried by releasing truthful information about Hillary.  Had Hillary and Obama told the truth, then there would have been no reason to disclose the emails that contradicted the lies.  Having the truth about Hillary is good for our country but bad for Hillary and Obama.

RECENT VIDEOS