Profile picture
, 21 tweets, 4 min read Read on Twitter
The Big Lie About ‘Russian’ ‘Hacking’… via @epochtimes
Hearing Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) address former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen in committee last week was another grating reminder of how unproven theories—fantasies, even—become big lies: through constant, brazen repetition.
Something happened at the DNC in 2016, all right, and that “something” led to the WikiLeaks publication of thousands of DNC emails, and the swift disgrace and resignations of top DNC officials over revelations of DNC favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
Nearly three years have passed, however, and no one has produced forensic evidence of a DNC “hack” by “the Russians”—and that includes special counsel Robert Mueller, whose 2018 indictment of a dozen or so Russians presents zero evidence to support his accusations.
Not even the FBI discovered evidence of any hack at the DNC because, in part, the nation’s federal law enforcement body never examined the DNC’s computer servers.
“In fact,” two former intelligence experts write, “forensic evidence contradicts the official account that blames the leak of the DNC emails on a Russian internet ‘intrusion.’ The evidence supports an alternate explanation—the files were copied onto a file storage device,
William Binney and Larry Johnson in a blog essay titled “Why the DNC was not hacked by the Russians.” They are not ordinary bloggers. Binney was a technical director of the NSA where he served for 36 years and actually created many of the data collections systems still in use
Johnson is a CIA veteran analyst of 27 years. Their essay is just the latest in a string of such counter-conventional-wisdom analyses of “Russian hacking” put forward by members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Binney and Ray McGovern, a former CIA briefer of The President’s Daily Brief, smelled a rat from the start, publishing on Jan. 6, 2017, at Consortium News, “The Dubious Case on Russian ‘Hacking.'”…
By May 2017, the “dubious case” had exploded into a piece they called “The Gaping Holes in Russia-gate,” also at Consortium News. Here, Binney and McGovern enlarged the story’s context with stunning implications.…
March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents—mostly ignored by the mainstream media—showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings,
“In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several ‘active measures’ undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and [James] Clapper—the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6.”
In July 2017, Binney, Johnson, McGovern, and 10 other members of VIPS including Edward Loomis Jr released a lengthy memo to President Donald Trump citing “new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 ‘assessment’ that Russia ‘hacked’ Democratic emails last year.”
More memos by Binney and co-authors to the president have followed, and more essays, too, all of them supporting the same core, “big-lie”-smashing claim: the DNC data was “leaked, not hacked.”
As with the disintegration of the so-called Steele dossier, bought and paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, the “Russian hacking” story should be on life support, too
The existence of expert dissent and evidence, however, exists in a black hole of non-coverage and non-debate.
Publisher Julian Assange, has stated that WikiLeaks’ source was not Russia, very strongly suggested during an interview in August 2016 that the late Seth Rich, a DNC official (and Sanders supporter) slain in July 2016 on the street in Washington, was WikiLeaks’s source.
With all of this vital, combustible information relegated to the background or the dark—the way the Swamp likes it—Wasserman Schultz teed up “Russian hacking” last week, just brimming with a righteous, even heroic, victimhood.
“Russian hack” vs. internal leak aside, if Wasserman Schultz was so concerned about the United States and democracy itself, why did the Democrats not call in the FBI at the first indication of a cyber breach? (Or ever?)
Why, according to then-DNC CEO Amy Dacey, who would also resign in disgrace, was the DNC’s first SOS while supposedly under cyber-attack to Perkins Coie’s Michael Sussmann, mission control for the law firm’s DNC and Hillary Clinton portfolios?
Why did Sussmann, too, fail to call in the nation’s top cyber-cops at the FBI? Instead, Sussmann hired a private outfit with a checkered record, CrowdStrike, co-founded by a Russian ex-pat (Dmitri Alperovitch), with a Mueller FBI protege (Shawn Henry) on the executive team.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to CSM
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!