The Big Lie About ‘Russian’ ‘Hacking’

By Diana West, March 6, 2019

West’s commentary begins:
“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. At a certain point, they cut channels through the public mind*** and run through history evermore as ‘conventional wisdom.’ 
“We now teeter at this point with the unproven theory—aka big lie—that ‘the Russians’ ‘hacked’ the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
“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, including DNC chair Wasserman Schultz, 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. …”Ray comment on “the hack that supposedly gave us Trump:”
Was Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 bid for president hurt when WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 published those DNC emails?  Of course.  Were the emails authentic?  Yes.  Did they expose a cabal that sabotaged the candidacy of Bernie Sanders?  Again, yes.
But how did WikiLeaks get the DNC emails?

Did the Russians hack into the DNC, steal the emails, and give them to WikiLeaks?  Most Americans have been led to believe that, but there is no evidence to support it.  Bottom line: The hard forensic evidence that does exist points clearly not to a HACK but rather to a LEAK by a person with direct access to the DNC computers.

The forensics do not identify the leaker.  One surmise is that it may have been an erstwhile Bernie Sanders supporter shocked at reading emails revealing the DNC shenanigans that, arguably, cost Sanders the nomination.  The late Seth Rich and perhaps associates, of course, are leading candidates.

Russia’s alleged role in all this was conjured up — a la “Weapons of Mass Destruction” supposedly in Iraq — by analysts handpicked by former National Intelligence Director James (the-Russians-are-almost-genetically-driven-to-be-deceitful) Clapper and his kemosabe ex-CIA Director John Brennan.  A key supporting role was played by a shockingly negligent FBI Director, James Comey, who avoided examining the supposedly ‘hacked’ DNC computers/servers.  Comey chose instead to say: “Mother, may I?” and was refused access.  Unbelievable, literally.

When the intelligence directors tried to sell ‘A Russian-hack-to-Wikileaks’ story to former President Barack Obama, he was not buying it .  And he made a point of saying so publicly just two days before he left town. (Better-late-than-never, I suppose.)

In contrast to Comey/Brennan/Clapper, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have examined forensic evidence — largely metadata — that show the leak of the DNC emails was an inside job AND that Guccifer 2.0 is an out-and-out fraud.  (Mueller take note.)
VIPS has been pointing to this for well over two years, and continuing forensic research has helped confirm VIPS’ conclusions.  Yet, VIPS can found no outlet — even among most “progressive” media — willing to even report on VIPS findings.  A notable exception was an excellent article by Patrick Lawrence in The Nation in August 2017, but even then the Editor of The Nation was browbeaten by “progressives” into including a “dissent.” (See: )

WANTED: Suggestions as to how to get word on VIPS’ findings to Special Counsel Robert Mueller before he “completes” an incomplete report marred by Comey-style negligence.  There more than a handful of key witnesses and technical specialists that he apparently has not yet interviewed.
*** The end goal is not to get you to parrot that 2+2=5. The end goal is to make it so you’d never even consider that 2+2 could equal anything other than 5. (Hat tip to “HelenofdesTroy.”