Did Hillary Pull Russia Into Her Web? (Video)
My imperfect attempt at transcribing the video which is below- W.E. :
Greetings to the citizens of the world:
The Russian hacking flap has nothing to do with Russia, has nothing to do with hacking.
The story is basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the political fall out from the nearly 50,000 emails that Wikileaks planned to publish on July 22nd, 2016, just three days before the Democratic National Convention.
That's what this really is all about.
Russia didn't hack anything, it is a big diversion that was conjured up on the fly to keep Hillary's bandwagon from going down in flames.
Put yourself in Hillary's shoes for a minute.
She knew the deluge was coming and she knew it was going to be bad.
According to Veteran Intelligence Professionals, for Sanity, DNC Contractor CrowdStrike claimed to find evidence of Russian malware on DNC servers just three days after Wikileaks announced that it was about to publish emails related to Hillary Clinton. Clearly that was no coincidence. The plan to blame Russia was already underway.
Hillary knew the emails were going to expose the DNC's efforts to rig the primaries and torpedo Bernie Sanders' campaign and she knew that the media was going to have a field day dissecting the private communications word by word on cable news or splashing them on the headlines for weeks on end. It was going to be excruciating. She knew that. They all knew that and how would her supporters react when they discovered that their party leaders and presidential candidate were actively involved in sabotaging the process and subverting the primaries? That wasn't going to go over well with voters in Poughkeepsi now was it? Maybe she would see her public approval ratings slip even more. Maybe she would nose dive in the polls or lose the election outright. She didn't know. No one knew. All she knew is that she was in trouble, big trouble. So she reacted exactly the way you would expect Hillary to react; she hit the panic button. In fact, they all freaked out every one of them including (unintelligible) and the rest of the DNC honchos.
Once they figured their presidential bid could go up in smoke they decided to act preemptively, pull out all the stops and go big.
That's where Russia comes into the picture.
The DNC brass, with help from the CIA, decided to conjure up a story so fantastic that, well, it had to be true. Afterall, that is what the 17 intel agencies said, right? And so did the Elite media including the NY Times the Washington Post and CNN. They can't all be wrong, can they? Sure, they goofed up on Sadam's WMD's and Iran's imaginary nukes program and Assad's fictional chemical weapons attack, but hey, everyone makes mistakes, right?
In any event, they settled on Russia mainly because Russia had rolled back Washington's imperial projects in both Ukraine and Syria so the media was already in full demonization mode and raring to go. All the DNC needed to do was mention the words "Russia meddling" and they would be off to the races.
Does any of these seem even remotely believable? Foreign CIA analyst Ray McGovern seems to think so because he expounded a very similar scenario about a month ago in an interview.
What did Hillary do? Hillary gathered her war council together and one fellow says,
"I know what we can do, we'll blame it on the Russians". And someone else says, "But it wasn't the Russians, it was Wikileaks".
Guy #1 says, "Well that's a tougher, we hate them both equally so we will say 'Wikileaks is working with the Russians' ".
That was two days before the convention. And someone else says,
"What will the Russian alibi be?"
Guy #2 says, "The Russians clearly want Trump to win".
#1: "But what about the major media?"
#2, "The major media want Hillary to win so if we get the major media on board, well, we really got it wired."
Ray McGovern again:
And if you watch the coverage since the Wikileaks leak two days before the convention the media content was not 'how did Hillary steal the election' but 'how did the Russians do it'.
He's right, isn't he? Hillary and company pulled off the whole ruse without a hitch.
The media focused on the Russia meddling angle and the calculating Ms. Clinton slipped away with nary a scratch. It's amazing.
But there was one glitch to the blame Russia scheme. There was no hard evidence of Russia involvement.
And now, ten months into multiple investigations of Russian hacking and there's still no evidence.
How can that be? Well, for one thing, the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers. Let me repeat that. In the biggest and most explosive investigation in more than a decade, an investigation that has obvious national security implications, alleged cyber espionage by a hostile foreign power, alleged collusion by high ranking officials in the current administration, alleged treason or collusion on the Chief Executive and a possible impeachment of a sitting President, the FBI has not yet secured or examined the servers that may or may not provide evidence of cyber intrusion by Russia.
Why? Why would the FBI accept the analysis of some flunky organization that no one has ever heard of before, Crowd Strike, rather than use all the tools at their disposal to thoroughly examine whether or not the hacking took place or not? Isn't that their job? You're damn right it is.
The reason the FBI never insisted on examining the DNC's servers is that they knew the story was baloney from the get-go. Otherwise, they would have kicked down the doors at the DNC and seized the computers using brute force and arrested anyone who tried to stop them. Those computers are exhibit A. in the trial of the century. They should be under lock and key at FBI headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC HQ.
The fact the servers have not been seized and examined just proves what a joke this whole Russia deal really is.
You see, when a law enforcement agency like the FBI fails so conspicuously in carrying out its duties you have to assume other factors are involved, mainly politics. It's all politics, right? There is no rational behavior for the FBI's behavior other than it is following in a political script that coincides with the agenda and ambitions of the DNC and other power players behind the scenes.
Investigative Journalist Gareth Porter summed it up perfectly in the brilliant article titled "Foisting blame for cyber hacking on Russia" He said:
So, the history of the U.S. government’s claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was ever suggested.
Right on Porter. Facts don't matter in the Russia hacking case. They never have. The whole approach from day one was to drown the public with innuendo and baseless accusations while the MSM carnival barkers pretend Russia meddling is already settled science and that only Putin puppets would ever doubt the veracity of the media's loony claims.
Got that? But facts do matter, and so does evidence and on that score, we are in luck because of McGovern's group, the Veteran's Intelligence Professional's for Sanity, VIPS, released a blockbuster report last week that produced the first hard evidence that Russia most certainly did not hack the DNC servers. It was a DNC insider.
Here is an excerpt from the VIPS article entitled "Was the Russian hack an inside job?"
Independent cyber investigators have now come up with verifiable evidence from meta data found in the record of the alleged Russian hack. They have found that the purported hack of the DNC was not a hack but originated with a copy by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut and paste job to implicate Russia.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied on to a storage device at a speed that far exceeds and internet capability for a remote hack.
Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East Coast of the U.S.
Was the Russian hack an inside job counterpunch? (Unintelligible)
There was no hack. Someone working inside the DNC, a disgruntled employee who had access to the computers and who worked on the East Coast copied the data on to a storage device and transferred it to Wikileaks.
That is what you call a leak and not a hack. There was no hack. Russia was not involved. The official narrative is B.S., end of story. Naturally, the MSM has completely ignored the VIPS report just as they ignored Cernovich's brilliant article that proved that Assad did not launch a chemical weapons attack in Syria. That bit of information has been locked out of the MSM coverage altogether as it doesn't jive with Washington's 'Assad most go' policy.
So to, McGovern's verifiable forensic evidence that the Russian's did not hack the DNC servers will likely be consigned to the memory hole like every other inconvenient factoid that doesn't fit with Washington's foreign policy objectives.
The fact that the FBI has not seized the DNC computers is just one of many glaring admissions in this farcical investigation. But there are others too. Like this: Did you know that there are two eyewitnesses in the case that have not yet been questioned? That's right. There are two people that claim to know the identity of the person who gave the stolen emails to Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Craig Murray. Murray, who is the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and a human rights activist claims he met the person who took the emails from the DNC in a wooded area in Washington D.C. last year. In other words, Murray can settle this matter once in for all and put an end to this year long witch hunt that has consumed the media and Capitol Hill, preventing the Congress from conducting the People's business and increased the probability of a conflagration with nuclear armed Russia.
But here is the problem. The FBI has never interviewed Murray or made any effort to interview him, it is like he doesn't exist. In other words, we have a credible witness who can positively identify the person who leaked emails, gave them to Wikileaks and set off a political firestorm that has engulfed the Capitol and the country for the last year and the FBI hasn't interviewed him?
Will someone explain that to me, please?
That is why I remain convinced that the Russian hacking story is pure (unintelligible) bunk. There is not a word of truth to any of it.
We hope this information has enlightened you.
We are Anonymous.