Did The Russians Hack Us?

The Russians more than likely hacked us on numerous occasions. Just like the Chinese did with the Office of Personnel Management. Did the Russian government hack our election though? No real evidence to support that in my opinion. Obama even stated as such when he said: “we did not see further tampering of the election process” (1). This was of course referring to the actual election. Since the Obama Administration cannot specifically say Russia hacked our election, they have to say something else, they hacked the DNC, Podesta, etc to try and influence the election. That is the key aspect here. Since Obama couldn’t just say false information and accuse another country of committing an act of war, he knows he has to try and paint another picture.

This is where the Russian narrative comes into play. During the election, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, Obama, and the politicians on the left kept running with the story that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta to help Trump win the election. It was that Wikileaks was working with the Russians to release this information. Wikileaks denies these claims and states: “The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false — we can say that the Russian government is not the source” (2). He’s not wrong either. So far, everything is being blamed on Russia. Everyone in Trump’s circle has ties to Russia apparently.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, is now a Wikileaks operative and he claims an inside source obtained the emails, not Russia. Murray was interviewed for the Daily Mail and said: “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks” (3). There have been many speculations about who it might have been but there are a lot of clues that point to Seth Rich, a DNC data analyst who was gunned down near his home in D.C. this past July. A data analyst inside the DNC could of had access to this information and the knowledge on how to obtain it. This could also explain why an outdated virus was used to obtain the information. Something that was readily available and free. The latest versions are usually something you pay for.

But lets not forget TIME magazine in their amazing piece that states the CIA knows who in Russia did the hack. “By October, it had become clear that the Russians were trying to help the Trump campaign, said one official familiar with the full report speaking on the condition of anonymity because the complete version is Top Secret” (4). Well damn, isn’t that convenient. The complete version is top secret so none of us can view it and this CIA official was anonymous so there is no way for anyone to even corroborate the story. This is the same publication that has stories like: “Watch Witches Cast a Spell at Trump Tower” (5). I digressed a bit here.

I will let John McAfee articulate the issues with this intelligence report that came out from the CIA on this topic. McAfee is a programmer and businessman who founded McAfee (back when the anti-virus program was good).

The video is 5 minutes long so its a quick watch. It talks about the GRIZZLY STEPPE report from DHS about the Russians hacking the election. I have included it in reference number 6. I’m going to speak hypothetical here if I was a hacker. Why would I not make sure my location was anonymous and that it was either not possible to trace or very unlikely it could be traced? This report basically lays out that it was known right away, as if the Russian government hacked the DNC from their work computer with no encryption, no spoofing, etc. Why on earth would any nation state who is committing an act of war against another country do that? They wouldn’t. Then they use a virus that is over a year old to orchestrate the attack? Again, why would a nation state’s intelligence agency use outdated viruses to break into a political party’s email server? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Then they just continue to make it easier on them by making sure it shows the time of when the virus was finished and my god, it was just in time to get off from work in Russia to celebrate the hack over some vodka! Then they used a Russian keyboard to type all that hacker language on. This just sounds like some plot to some D rated spy movie on the SyFy channel or an SNL skit.

Our CIA has pushed that narrative from the very start. The former CIA director had even gone on television to make sure everyone knew it was the Russians and they were working with Wikileaks to help Trump win. If our main spy agency says you should believe something, you probably shouldn’t believe it. On PBS Newshour, outgoing CIA Director, John Brennan said: “…those who doubt the connection between Russia and the hacking of Democratic Party email accounts, leading up to November’s election, should take a look at the forthcoming intelligence report before they make those judgments” (7). I’m glad the head of the agency behind all the intelligence reporting that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction is once again telling us to believe them. Oh, but they’ve changed. They have? Then why is the CIA itself saying we should believe the intelligence reports? Shouldn’t the members of congress report on whats going on after they’ve had their intelligence hearings and made a conclusion after the investigations are concluded?

This Fox News article is the most interesting yet when it comes to the Russian hacking aspect. Back in December: “ the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction” (8). What’s interesting about this is that Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman, found it unacceptable that the Intel directors would not fulfill a request to be briefed on what was going on. The CIA had already concluded that Russia was working with Wikileaks yet the Director of National Intelligence had first reported that there was not “strong evidence connecting Russia to the WikiLeaks disclosures”. Later, Clapper would then confirm the CIA’s results that Russia was working with them. Even though no real evidence has ever been concluded.

Then this Town Hall article is even better when it comes to FBI Director James Comey. One section states: “In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign” (9). In this same article, Comey also admits that someone not affiliated with the Russian government could have been behind the hacks as well. Another article from The Blaze also corroborates this story as well. In this article, there is a pretty big bombshell that was dropped: “Comey allegedly told Trump that there was only one U.S. intelligence official who was convinced the Russians were behind the hacked emails, and that was CIA Director John Brennan” (10). That’s a pretty big accusation if true. Lets take a look at some of the headlines that made me laugh. Trust me, they are relevant to this.

You see the issue here? First there are no ties to Russia then there is. First the FBI and DNI differed with what the CIA reported but now they are in agreement. It was as if the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI were in agreement that there was little info to support the Russian narrative laid out by the CIA but at some point, they decided the CIA was correct. You see where the issue is? The Intel Community was not in agreement but then after a few days, suddenly were not in agreement. That seems a bit odd to me. Almost as if they had some meetings and decided to run with the story to try and discredit Trump.

The one main thing these articles also fail to mention is how John Podesta was hacked. They say the Russians hacked his email yet he wasn’t hacked. He clicked a phishing link in his email and entered his information like an idiot. Folks, don’t do that. I could clone Gmail so it looks like the actual site and when you input your username and password, it would just redirect you to the real Gmail site and the overwhelming majority would have no idea what happened. They would just figure they put in the wrong info and got sent back to the main page. In the process of doing all of that, I now have your username and password. It is literally that simple. Programs do all the work for you. You just tell it where to send the login credentials to. Anyone could have done this. Why would the Russian government use simple phishing links to hack Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Manager? The biggest thing is why hasn’t the FBI confiscated the DNC email servers or at least lead an investigation? Why haven’t they? The DNC also didn’t report anything to the FBI until the Wikileaks stuff came out. Kind of weird. If you have a breach, you always report it to authorities. There are actual regulations regarding these kinds of things. Auditing still exists and not reporting something like a hack on an entire email server from the DNC is huge.

What could the Russians possibly gain in hacking the DNC and Podesta? Maybe Putin just really hates Clinton even though she was going to go down the same road as Obama has with regards to our military and foreign relations. Meaning, keep the pace of reducing reducing our military and having little actual action against Russia for issues like Ukraine. Meanwhile, Trump wants to build up our military and take a strong stance against the BS Russia likes to get involved in. Just because Trump said he wants to try and have good relations with Russia does not mean he was working with them to win the election. This isn’t the Cold War. Our leftist media and establishment republican politicians along with those on the left seem hellbent on pushing this narrative.

We all understand the narrative to try and hurt Trump’s legitimacy by saying the Russians were working with him to help him win. That still doesn’t explain why the media on the left ran almost 100% positive coverage of Clinton with almost 100% negative coverage about Trump. They would even take out the context of whatever Trump was talking about and fill it in for you. But the media clearly wasn’t trying to help Clinton just like they continue to not be about hurting Trump. They go along with whatever narrative suits them.

Now that the election was over, the narrative had to shift a bit since it was clear the whole “Russia hacked our election” was not going to cut it. They had to use the narrative of Trump and his campaign have ties to Russia. Of course sticking with the Russian theme. I mean, Russia is the blame for everything if you haven’t noticed yet.

There are now report after report about Trump himself not having any ties to Russia and then you have politicians on the left like Chuck Schumer or republican establishment types like John McCain saying that Trump’s ties to Russia are troubling. How can he be tied to Russia and at the same time, not be tied to Russia? When you have all these reports and investigations turning up nothing, something has got to give. This is where General Flynn came in.

We have this information that seems to have come out today from the House Intel Chair, Devin Nunes: “…there is no evidence that I’ve been presented of regular contact with anybody within the Trump campaign. … The only one that’s — that’s obvious is the — is General Flynn’s discussions with the Russians which I would still contend that he was doing what he was supposed to do, which is prepare the president-elect for office by getting as many leaders in front of him as possible” (11). This entire thing seems like the left and the establishment trying to find a needle in a haystack when Trump already found the needle. Trump poses a very distinct threat to the republican establishment and those on the left who oppose him. With the stroke of a pen, he could tear down the power and wealth they’ve accumulated over the years. There is a lot of power to be lost at the hands of Trump. While that is actually good for our government, it is bad news for those who want to keep their power.

They are willing to do almost anything to make sure Trump doesn’t accomplish what he wants. They didn’t like Flynn. He posed a big threat to the establishment most of all. The republicans like McCain wanted Flynn out. Don’t you find it odd that all you’ve heard about on Flynn’s contact about Russian sanctions is just that he talked about Russian sanctions? Not what he actually said, just the topic. They have released no transcripts and I have a feeling they wont for a long time. When they eventually come out and they will prove his innocence in that, he may have said something along the lines of: “Right now, we won’t be changing the sanctions.” That could have been it. But you will never know. Those involved in the leaks don’t want you to know. I’m not trying to get all conspiracy theory on you, but wouldn’t you like to know what he got fired (resigned) for? Flynn was with Trump pretty much from the start of his campaign if my memory serves me right. He knew Trump’s base and sided with Trump’s way of politics. He was the main guy to get rid of seeing what his position was with what kind of power he had. Keep that in mind when it comes to him. Those deep in the intelligence community want to retain the power they have. They don’t want changes and Flynn was an enemy who needed to be removed.

You ever notice how the media and the rest go after Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, and Stephen Miller along with Flynn? Why these three after Flynn? They are Trump’s closest advisors. When things start to break down with the whole Russian narrative like it will be in the next few months, they will try to attack these three even more. We’ve seen only one real hit piece against Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. I’m not saying he is behind these hit pieces since he represents the establishment, but that the main four were anti-establishment and they are the real enemies with Trump. Remove them and Trump can become more of a puppet. I doubt Trump would, but you get the picture.

At the end of the day, the establishment doesn’t really like Trump but there isn’t a whole lot they can do. The left hates him and the media is just doing whatever will get them ratings. Unfortunately, 100% bashing of Trump doesn’t seem to be working even though they are sticking with it. Which is another reason Fox’s ratings are soaring. The enemies of Trump want to paint a picture that could lead to impeachment. They need the Russian narrative to stick. Thankfully, we have people still on our side like Devin Nunes on the House Intel Committee. When anyone from the intelligence community says “Trust us”, be extremely skeptical.

I will leave you with some interesting articles that I found humorous relating to this topic.

The piece about Olbermann I found the best. The guy has literally gone nuts.

References