By Rene Sotolongo:
The “Russian hacking” rhetoric is nothing but a smoke screen—a textbook misinformation false flag operation to obscure the unbelievable amount of lawbreaking that occurred at the hands of the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton. In other words, the blame game is alive and well at the DNC.
So let me see if I’ve got this right—Obama, his administration, and yes, even members of Congress knew back in September that the Russians were hacking our systems. They knew, and yet nothing was done. Why?
Because at the time, it appeared that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election. And in Washington circles, hacking by the Russians is business as usual. No reason to bring it up if their “chosen one” is going to win.
Side note: it should come as no surprise to anyone that Russia collects intelligence on American policymakers; after all, even Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn tweeted that Russian hacking “happens all the time.”
Look, in the intelligence community, collecting actionable information on one’s adversaries is considered fair game. And if Russia is “hacking” all the time, it begs the question: has Russia tried to compromise previous American elections?
Now keep that in mind when you consider that according to a few “select” members of Congress, the CIA has assessed through “circumstantial evidence” that Russia was responsible for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s emails and providing those emails to WikiLeaks, which released them to the public.
The first question that comes to mind: exactly what circumstantial evidence is there? What exactly led the CIA (and now the FBI and DNI) to believe that Russia hacked into the DNC email system? And more importantly, what evidence is there that Russia hacked into the system with the clear intent to influence the election?
Let’s talk about circumstantial evidence and the inferences made from this evidence for a minute. By publicly declaring that Russia hacked the DNC with the specific “intent” to influence the election, one must infer that the Russians knew exactly what was on the DNC computers and that they were “directly” after this information.
But does it not seem more plausible to infer that it was a DNC insider who knew exactly what was in those emails and that they were the ones who chose to leak it to WikiLeaks?
Just consider for a moment that on August 9th of 2016, a DNC staffer was murdered—and it just so happens that this was the same DNC staffer (Seth Rich) that WikiLeaks suggested was the source of the information. (It’s almost impossible to find a mainstream media story that covers this fact.)
Did Russia know the emails would expose clear-cut criminality by Secretary Clinton, her family, and her former staff in regards to using her office to solicit tens of millions of dollars from foreign heads of state for her family’s foundation?
Or did the Russians know that there would be clear evidence that Clinton’s campaign staff colluded with CNN journalists prior to her debate with Donald Trump in order to assist her in the debate and election?
Or did the Russians know that Clinton’s campaign staff and the DNC colluded to undermine and destroy the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders?
Clinton’s staff and members of the DNC were well aware of the fact that Sanders was soliciting millions of dollars for his presidential campaign. What they also knew was that the DNC leadership were all covertly conspiring to do everything in their power to undermine his campaign and guarantee his failure.
So why all the press coverage on the alleged Russian “hacking” scandal? Why does Obama castigate Russia on national television about their hacking—something he knew about months ago? Simple. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee colluded in murder, fraud, blackmail, pay-to-play, and God knows what else.
Bottom line: they broke the law. The Russian “hacking” scandal is the means and method to cover it up.
Consider this: at no time has the Democratic leadership, the president, or Hillary Clinton ever denied ANY of the allegations of criminal wrongdoing that are contained in the released emails.
And might I also point out that WikiLeaks, who released the “hacked” emails, has an impressive accuracy record. Not once has anything that has been released by WikiLeaks been “officially” disproven. This is something that you can’t say about mainstream media or even the CIA, for that matter. After all, weren’t these the same players who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Here is the problem. The dangers posed by a political party or government agency engaging in criminal behavior are significantly greater and more harmful than the danger posed by an individual or small group of non-governmental individuals that exposes the former. I say non-governmental because Julian Assange has clearly and emphatically stated that “Russia is not our source.” Despite the constant flip-flopping of our intelligence community saying no they didn’t to now saying yes they did, I am more prone to believe Assange.
What’s far more dangerous than the hacking itself is the criminal conduct that was exposed in those emails by members of our own government in an attempt to undermine our election and sway our democracy in a way that’s never been done before. And that is why they want to blame the Russians for attempting to influence our elections. Hell, it was never Russia. It was our own government! That is why the Russian hacking scandal is questionable.
If Congress wants to accomplish something real for a change, then they need to forward their findings to the FBI and the Department of Justice and demand a criminal investigation into the conduct and individuals contained in those emails.
But of course, that won’t happen. The Democrats are still in charge (at least for the time being), and they are hell bent on distracting us from the real criminals. And it ain’t the Russians.
Rene C. Sotolongo is an OpsLens Contributor and a retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer who served for over twenty years as an Information Systems official. Sotolongo also specialized in homeland security and counterterrorism.