What To Do About the IC Big Lie That “Russia” “Hacked” the DNC?: Diana West
http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/4011/What-To-Do-About-the-IC-Big-Lie-That-Russia-Hacked-the-DNC.aspx
Back in October, I abandoned an essay I had begun about Andy McCarthy’s book, Ball of Collusion, especially regarding his statement of faith in the so-called Intelligence Community and Mueller Report finding that “Russia” “hacked” the DNC (see below). As many will recall, the evidence for this finding is a redacted draft report submitted to the FBI by a DNC contractor, Crowdstrike.
After the recent release of December 2017 testimony by Crowdstrike co-founder (and Mueller protege) Shawn Henry in which he admits that Crowdstrike had no evidence for this foundational charge, I wondered how we might approach the colossal course correction, news correction, history correction, the admission requires, not to mention the questions it raises about this testimony having remained locked away from public sight for two and half desperate years. After all, this charge — that “Russia” “hacked” the DNC — was the basis of the entire Trump-Russia disinformation campaign that served as the Obama administration cover for its anti-Trump conspiracy.
It was all but universally promoted, set in play and driven by the DNC, the “IC,” the Hillary Clinton campaign, the media complex, and “accepted,” as in the case of Andy McCarthy (as he describes below), on faith by almost all Republicans — even including by the Nunes committee in its final report on Russia and the election in March 2018. (This is more than passing strange given Shawn Henry’s testimony in December 2017 before that same committee.)
This same claim was also the basis of the first line of the attack on the legitimacy of President Trump’s electoral victory and his presidency, his own loyalty to this country, and that of his supporters. It was also one of the conspirators’ primary justifications for the Stasi-like surveillance and subversion of the Trump campaign and White House.
Too much time has passed, too much narrative has been pounded into place. The heat of this particular battle, if not cooled completely, is now out of range. We seem to have abandoned even this well-fortified hill, its strategic importance to the president’s enemies no more. Move on. The history books won’t carry more than the odd footnote, anyway. I don’t expect Andy McCarthy to rewrite any of his book, do you? Time to forget about it, right?
It’s hard.
—-
Below is the top of that old unpublished essay of mine which popped into my mind today:
Midway through Ball of Collusion, I have come upon a ball of confusion I could not pass. It is in Chapters 9 and 10, where the reader arrives at a discussion of what I consider the most vulnerable point of exposure for the anti-Trump conspiracy: the events around and including the release by Wikileaks of the DNC emails which revealed to the American public that Hillary Clinton and the DNC were themselves colluding to rig the 2016 Democratic primary process against Bernie Sanders, among other acts of corruption and hypocrisy.
The identity of the source of these Clinton-crushing emails is still unknown. The approved narrative, repeated incessantly in unison to a point where it resembles something closer to gospel than the line of propaganda that it is is this: (1) Russia “hacked” the DNC and passed the emails to Julian Assange for dissemination by Wikileaks because (2) Putin hated Hillary.
Why do I call this a line of propaganda? Because the evidence for this outrageous claim — that Donald Trump was helped into the presidency by Kremlin cyberattacks on the Democratic Party — is based on a report — a redacted, draft report — issued not by the FBI or other government investigative agency, but by a DNC contractor named Crowdstrike, an IT company heavily capitalized by Google Capital (now Alphabet) with a checkered reputation whose co-founders, including Soviet-born Dmitri Alperovitch and Shawn Henry, have associations with anti-Trump centers of Washington establishment power — the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council (Alperovitch) and Robert Mueller’s FBI (Henry).
In other words, the “hoax” part of the “Russia hoax” starts here. Despite the inadequacy of this evidence, however, Andrew McCarthy accepts and promulgates this same unproven theory that the source of the DNC emails published by Wikileaks was the Russian government’s Crowdstrike-alleged “hack” of the DNC.
We, the People, are to believe that it was “Russia” that “hacked” the DNC server. For one, Andrew McCarthy does, as he points out many times. His rationale? Because the so-called Intelligence Community says so. This may seem incredible at this advanced stage in our national education about the dark arts and seditious nature of the US intelligence world, and especially since McCarthy is referencing the January 6, 2017 ICA, discussed here.
“So, to be clear,” McCarthy writes on p. 179, “I accept, and have always accepted, the intelligence agencies’ conclusion, echoed by Mueller, that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic email accounts. There are skeptics who do not accept this conclusion, and they are not all crackpots as the media-Democrat complex would have you believe. But I do accept it.”
Comments are closed.
