At Wednesday’s final presidential debate in Las Vegas, everyone was anxious to hear about the WikiLeaks email dumps exposing the corrupt inner workings of the Clinton campaign.
It would have been impossible for Donald Trump to go through every single way the hacked Clinton emails make both her and her party look like amoral shams and shills of the worst kind.
But Trump didn’t have to do that. Hillary herself stepped in it big time by insisting the Russkies done it and she had the proof. It could prove to be the biggest lie of the night for the Democrat nominee for whom lying has become an art form.
“We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election,” the Democrat nominee declared indignantly.
Hillary never said the information in those damning emails was wrong or fabricated, instead pointing incessantly to the belief by numerous U.S. intelligence experts that Russia is behind it all. Donald Trump, on the other hand, said, “She has no idea whether it’s Russia … Our country has no idea.”
So, which one is right? Well, according to National Review’s Fred Flietz, it wasn’t the candidate wearing the creamy white pantsuit.
“First of all, only two intelligence entities — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement,” the National Review writer pointed out.
The memo of which he talks doesn’t offer any real evidence, just quite a bit of politically convenient conjecture.
“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,” the joint memo, issued Oct. 7, reads.
“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.”
I understand that we want to trust that those who have sworn an oath to protect this country wouldn’t try to influence elections. However, the United States is the most sophisticated cyber-warfare actor in the world. The country has the ability to detect and respond to threats from all sorts of state actors and rogue cyber-agents.
After an exhaustive investigation, the best that DHS and the DNI can tell us is that “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.”
That’s only profiling. There is no concrete proof in that statement. There is nothing to indicate that IPs behind the attack have been traced to Russia, or any sort of digital breadcrumbs leading back to Moscow.
There is certainly nothing to validate Hillary’s claim that “17 intelligence agencies” have concluded anything.
While I am aware intelligence is not going to let on their exact methods and sources, I’d at least like to hear that something substantive has been discovered about the source of these hackings. Without them, I’m inclined to agree with what Fientz says in National Review.
“My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence,” he writes. “Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.”
U.S. intelligence services have lost so much of their credibility under the Obama administration, where they have been used to further political objectives. They’ve given Hillary Clinton something massive to hide behind, without having to explain the contents of the emails that prove she’s unfit to be our president.
Hillary’s debate gambit was classic Clinton — deflect, divert, distract — 17 ways from Sunday.
We can only hope the American electorate isn’t too distracted to lose sight of who the Democrat nominee really is.
Who do you think is behind the WikiLeaks hacks? Scroll down to comment below.To get more good news like this one, check out and LIKE our Facebook page: SourcesNews