Everybody knows that 17 different agencies put out a joint statement saying that Russia hacked the DNC and put out information (through Wikileaks) that damanged Hillary Clinton, thus throwing the election to Donald Trump.
I mean, the media keep saying it (I heard it as recently as yesterday morning on CBS), the “fact-checkers” at snopes and politifact agree, sort of, so there’s no issue, is there?
Uh, yes. There is.
The single best thing I have read in answer to this unmitigated BS is a commentary by Fred Fleitz at National Review. Here are a few key excerpts:
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. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks
. . . are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. 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 Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.
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. 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.
There is a lot more to Mr. Fleitz’s piece – all very much worth reading. But this encapsulates the facts just about as well as it could be done.
The statement does not offer a definitive conclusion that Russia did any such thing. And even if it did, the statement was put out by two agencies which have 15 other agencies working with/along side them…which is NOT the same thing as 17 agencies each coming to a definitive conclusion.
In other words, this is a pile of mung…which mainstream media were, and continue to be, perfectly happy to sell to the public as fact. Why? Because it could have helped Hillary Clinton win the election.
How’d that work out?