I’m the former CEO of a tech startup who lives in San Francisco, I have 15-years of experience in the tech industry, and I’ve spent the last year and half of my life working with some of the World’s best software engineers when it comes to developer operations, cloud orchestration, and data security. I also have a marketing background, and regularly research the psychology of persuasion, and propaganda.

I’ve personally analyzed every leak from this election season, and I have seen zero evidence the Russians have anything to do with the leaks. Unless some form of evidence is provided, it is my professional opinion the leaks are the result of an insider given the extent and complexity of the data that was leaked.

A government is attempting to manipulate and control this election, but it is not the Russians. It is the Obama administration.

Two days before the Presidential debate, the US government officially accused Russia of hacking, and interfering in the U.S. election. However, much like the Bush administration when accusing Iraq of having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) — which did not exist, the Obama administration has provided zero evidence for these accusations. They are trying to use their authority to convince the American people that Russia has something to do with Wikileaks, and the Trump campaign with no evidence.

The timing of the announcement was made the same day Wikileaks released the first set of e-mails from Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. This was not a coincidence, as no urgency was necessary to make said announcement other than to combat the leaks. In other words, the intention of the announcement was as propaganda to counter the Podesta e-mail leaks just before a Presidental debate, and had nothing to do with anything Russia might have done recently. The e-mails being released now are from data breaches that were confirmed in June/July of this year.

What is even more unusual about this, is the FBI claims there is no evidence the Russians or anyone else had access to Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server. This means the FBI perhaps does not agree with the statement made by the Obama administration. This further suggests the likelihood of an insider being responsible for the leaks, such as murdered DNC Data Specialist Seth Rich (of which Wikileaks has offered a reward for any information leading to a conviction). There is also the possibility that someone within the U.S. intelligence community upset with Hillary Clinton’s illegal mishandling of classified information is responsible for the leaks.

So what do these accusations mean?

Considering tension between Russia and the U.S. has reached a tipping point recently over the handling of Syria, these accusations could result in cyber war, further sanctions, armed conflict, and if escalation occurs nuclear warfare. The Obama administration is risking various forms of war with Russia based on an accusation of which they have provided zero evidence in an attempt to discredit Wikileaks, and distract the American people from the leaks.

From a psychological perspective this works as propaganda to manipulate people’s opinions on multiple fronts:

They’re blaming the messenger, which is a logical fallacy, and deflection attempt to distract the American people from the content of the leaks. They’re invoking Cold War fears in the Baby Boomer generation in an attempt to associate Donald Trump with the Russians to convince voters to vote for Hillary Clinton. They’re using authoritative reasoning to convince people to vote for Hillary Clinton so she can protect them from the Russians (even though she is far more likely to engage in conflict with the Russians). They’re setting the stage to contest the results of the election, and claim that if Donald Trump wins it is because Russia hacked the election. A future justification for war.

No matter what your political beliefs are, and who you intend to vote for, this kind of propaganda being spread by the Obama administration in the middle of an election has far more alarming geo-political consequences, and entirely unethical implications for the election and the United States compared to anything Donald Trump has ever said.

What if Russia Really Did Hack Clinton’s E-mail Server?

According to the U.S Government, the Russians are interfering with the Presidential election by revealing how corrupt Hillary Clinton is in attempt to avoid war with the United States by electing Donald Trump. A war the American people cannot afford, and do not want.

If Russia is somehow involved in the leaks, it does not mean the American people should discredit the content of the leaks, as the Clinton campaign has previously admitted their authenticity. We still need to hold our politicians accountable to the laws of our country, even if the means of obtaining the proof were not legal.

So even if you believe the Obama administration and Clinton campaign’s Russian conspiracy, then it is also important to consider the intention of why Russia would do this. If Russia is truly this afraid of a Clinton presidency, it is because they fear that she might purposely cause conflict with Russia. Which also means a vote for Hillary Clinton is likely a vote for war.

The facts as they stand at the time of writing this:

The U.S. Government has not provided any evidence that Russia has hacked anything. The FBI has stated there is no evidence Russia or anyone else hacked Clinton’s private e-mail server. There is no evidence the Donald Trump campaign is working with the Russians. Wikileaks has a 10-year history, and perfect record of never releasing a single falsified document. There is no evidence Wikileaks and Julian Assange work for the Russian Government. Several Clinton staffers, including Clinton herself, have admitted to the authenticity of the past leaks. The latest leaks are from the same original data breach. They are not a new hack. The leaks themselves prove the collusion between the Clinton campaign and the main stream media. Recent main stream media reports of falsified documents being edited by the Russians are again just unproven accusations with no evidence.

Based on the evidence, what do you think?