The Russia Hacking Report is Malarkey: Part 1 — The Beltway Times

D.C. BELTWAY

Sunday 66°45°F
THE POPULIST CONSERVATIVE NEWSPAPER

The Russia hacking report has been recently declassified by the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and it is just what we expected. The report is nothing more than a bunch of hot air and political junk- nothing more than a mud pile to use as an excuse to start conflict with Russia.

Written by the National Intelligence Council, the report details the “sources” that were used to conduct the hacking of the U.S. election process. However, the sources are nothing more than scapegoats to push the Russian hacking narrative. Most of these sources are based on non-professional persons, such as Social media accounts and supposed “state” run media. However, the definition of this is not clear, and anyone can be subjected under this criteria. In addition, the media is using this report as evidence that Trump’s victory was the result of rigging.  They claimed that either Trump’s Presidency would be disavowed by the public, or a constitutional crisis would occur during the validation process. However, their point never really was there, it was dead before it even started.

The narrative was started during the 2016 election, where it was alleged that Russian officials were spreading false information to sway the results of the election. Then, it escalated into allegations of hacking during the election process. The narrative has been a running gag for months in the mainstream media, which has fooled the majority of America. It has also served to increase tensions with Russia, reaching points not seen since the Cold War.

Even Donald Trump has chimed in on the flaws of the investigation before the report!

 

It’s time to kill and bury the Russian hacking narrative once and for all. We are going to review the entire declassified report and analyze its many flaws. The media has run with the narrative long enough and has played a part in influencing the public in a disingenuous way.

The Scope of the Russia Hacking Report

 

The first obvious flaw comes in the Scope section of the report. The scope focuses on “activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations”. However, the report also claims the following:

“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

Why is there no assessment about the outcome of these supposed “Russian activities”? If someone was to make an assessment, the outcome of a certain event is one of the most important points to make.

For example, let’s talk about the amount of voter fraud cases that have occurred in Democratic states. Let’s talk about Sara Sosa, the woman who died in 2009 but cast ballots in 4 separate elections after her death, according to the Washington Times . How about the Election Day computer malfunction in Colorado? These don’t count because they occurred in Democratic states, right?

Keep this in mind for later.

 

The Sourcing of the Russia Hacking Report

 

The Sourcing of this report is mainly based on three things. On sourcing, the report states:

“Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin.”

Basically, the report admits that most of its info is based off of media and social media reports, some of which can also be fake. Despite the accusations, no evidence has surfaced of any bias from Russia towards Trump on state media or Russian Social Media. Any sort of “pro-Kremlin” media or social media can be a normal twitter user or alternative media outlet, given the non-existent definition.

For example, a new bill that was passed on December 26th, called the “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” has a similar problem. In Title V, a section of the bill, Section 501 states:

The term “active measures by Russia to exert covert influence” means activities intended to influence a person or government that are carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly…

The terms include media manipulation, covert broadcasting, and disinformation.

Virtually, anyone can be classified as a pro-Kremlin operative.

 

“Key Judgments” of the Russia Hacking Report

 

Now, here’s where some of the speculation starts to get a bit ridiculous and lopsided in the report. Most pundits have considered these “revelations” as bombshells, but they’re nothing more than fluff. Here are some of the “Key Judgments” from the intelligence report.

  1. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process and hurt Secretary Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president.

Surely you can agree on the fact that Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president were hampered by online news sites reporting on the Clinton Foundation and many other topics about Clinton’s past. However, the thought of Russia being the ringleader behind it is nonsense.

Most of the news broken on Hillary Clinton came from “Alt-Right” mouthpieces on twitter such as Mike Cernovich, Bill Mitchell, Milo Yiannopolous and other influential figures associated with the movement. Other bloggers, journalists, and major twitter feeds also joined in exposing Hillary Clinton, many of whom were not Russian.

Further, there is no concrete evidence to support allegations that Russia paid these persons to inform. The Clinton campaign, however, had utilized journalists from mainstream outlets to write favorably upon her background and campaign ethics. This also included keeping her up to date with feeding her debate questions before the debate, a significant ethical breach.

Here are some examples:

And there any many other pieces of evidence to support the claim against the Clinton campaign.

 

2) Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations — such as cyber activity — with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state – funded media, third – party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”

There’s a huge contradiction here, and it is from the Clinton campaign. There are “trolls” who tried to defame not just Clinton, but Trump as well. However, it was a Clinton Super-PAC that was doing most of the dirty work.

The Super-PAC in question, Correct The Record, has been found to be paying internet trolls to besmirch journalists and other Trump supporters online. The site, now defunct, was also home to all of the plans made by the organization. In fact, the founder of “Correct The Record”, David Brock, admitted to paying trolls to besmirch Pro-Trump boards, forums, and other forms of communication via social media. This was after it was found that Correct the Record was funding the trolls with payments totaling over $1 million.

The Russia Hacking Report also alleged that Russia used the Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks alias to “pay” journalists and Wikileaks to spread information about the DNC, The Clinton Foundation and other major topics relevant to Hillary’s past. However, no concrete evidence has appeared to support these claims.

 

3) Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.

Coincidentally, another sort of attack of the same nature occurred on election boards months, weeks and even on the day of the election. Just before and on the day of the election, Georgia election systems were breached by unknown intruders in an apparent attack. The Georgia Secretary of state launched an immediate investigation into the breaches.

It was later found that the addresses of the attackers lead back to the Department of Homeland Security, according to the Georgia Secretary of State. Even more interesting, though, was that the attacks went as far back as February. DHS has denied involvement in the intrusions.

No evidence has surfaced of any sort of breach from outside of the U.S. on or before Election Day.

 

We are going to stop here for now, but there is a lot more that needs to be looked at and debunked. In the next part, we will look at the claims of the influence effort, the supposed Russian Campaign, and a summary of alleged Russian hacking efforts.