Analysis shows U.S. intel agencies inventing ‘Russian’ hacking story

Countless bytes have been expended trying to show why the story about Russians hacking the DNC is false. However, most omit the most relevant details and fail to analyze the statements by these agencies, which simply do not bear a moment’s scrutiny.

USA Today says Hillary was right about 17 agencies swearing on a stack of Korans that the Russians are responsible for the hacking of the DNC’s emails.

On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there [where is his evidence? Don Hank]. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

So there you have it. Now why would 17 Obama-loyal agencies lie?

Perhaps because deceit is what they are being paid for. They’re spies, silly.

Here is what ZeroHedge said:

The “17 agencies that actually confirmed” it was the Russians? Well it turns out that was one guy, namely DCI James Clapper: the head of US intelligence. The same man who committed perjury before congress after his NSA surveillance program was leaked [Hank’s emphasis].  He issued a statement that included the phrase:

We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

The very next sentence is also of interest:

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.

So these “17 agencies have 2 unrelated sets of justifications for their conclusions, namely methods and motivations, as mentioned in the USA Today quote, and scope and sensitivity as mentioned in the ZeroHedge quote.

For those who haven’t noticed that this has all the earmarks of statements made by professional liars who think we’re high school dropouts, let’s analyze these “justifications.”

1. Methods: Since Wikileaks is responsible for divulging the leaks, only they could possibly be in a position to know the methods used to do the hacks. Further, the agency does not tell us what the methods were. So this is simply another way of saying “we are making this up as we go.”
2. Motivations: This is irrelevant because the Russians are by no means the only group that might be highly motivated to hack DNC emails. Half of US voters and hundreds of groups in the US and elsewhere would be so motivated, so there is no selection factor here that would point specifically to the Russians.
3. Scope of the [hacking] efforts: There was a vast cache of emails, it is true. However, these all could have come from a single server or a very small number of servers. Once a hack is successful, one can tap into a large trove of  information with very little effort. So “scope” is not relevant. Any hacker anywhere could have done this. Wikileaks is known for the vast scope of its efforts. In fact, since there is no real proof of Russian involvement in hacks, there is no way anyone could know the scope of  typical Russian hacking efforts in order to make a comparison.
4. Sensitivity of the [hacking] efforts: What sensitivity? This is sufficiently vague that no one can really know what is meant. Is Clapper referring to the fact that the hacked information is sensitive? If so, then this too is totally irrelevant because almost all hackers are seeking sensitive information, not just the Russians.

But all of this smoke screen is intended to cover the only relevant detail, namely, the fact that the source of this information is irrelevant and does not change the two relevant facts:

The DNC is not denying that the hacks are real and accurate. This is absolutely amazing because it is the most relevant fact for voters and is being obfuscated by the imaginary Russian involvement.

The hacked information is damning to the Clintons and would, of course, influence anyone to reconsider voting for Hillary because, based on this information, she clearly is a shady character who belongs in the Big House and not in the White House.

The DNC is using the phony “evidence described above to influence the electorate college in an effort to steal the vote.

---