The Truth about Russian Hacking
For months now, we’ve listened to Democrats ranging from candidate, Hillary Clinton to Obama administration officials tell us that the “intelligence community” believes that Russian operatives hacked into D.N.C. computers and those of U.S. agencies in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. A gleeful Democrat media has reproduced the narrative from coast to coast. The truth, however, lies buried beneath the weeds of the various news reports.
Anyone who has worked for a large company or corporation knows that there are good managers and bad. In fact, the title “manager” often carries a negative connotation in many of these companies for this reason. Good managers are those who shield lower echelon employees from the effects of trivial and aggravating company policies that are unimportant to the primary function of the business. Good managers will also ensure that workers below them who perform exceptionally well, receive the recognition they deserve.
Bad managers, will do the opposite. They seem to delight in imposing heavier burdens on those under them, as they steal for themselves, the credit and any acknowledgment earned by those under them. The same situation exists in government organizations from local and state governments to the federal civil services.
Every federal government agency from the C.I.A. to the Department of the Interior is headed by a political appointee. That agency head can be an asset or an impediment to the effective operation of the federal government. Which he or she becomes is dependent upon his/her personal character and integrity. What does any of this have to do with Russian hacking? Quite a lot, actually.
While the news media reports that the “intelligence community” agrees that Russians hacked computers in an effort to influence or sway the election, that’s not necessarily true. The most widely quoted intelligence official regarding this issue has been James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. Director Clapper, speaking for the intelligence community and the 17 agencies which gather and compile information, has been the face of the story. But Clapper has some credibility problems.
After he was caught lying about National Security Agency‘s campaign of spying on the American people, James Clapper said, “It was the least untruthful thing I could have said.” The intelligence report cited by the mainstream media makes a number of assessments about efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. However, the actual report does not state that any of these had an impact on the outcome.
The intelligence report refers to information collected by the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency (N.S.A.). The report combines hacking efforts of a Romanian hacker “Guccifer” with DCLeaks as operators in a campaign to discredit Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. It further claims that information gathered by them was provided to WikiLeaks, because of WikiLeaks’ reputation for accuracy. WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange has made numerous public statements denying any involvement with the Russian government or any Russian agent. The report makes no judgment about the security of Democratic National Committee computer security or the veracity of the information contained in the releases harvested from the D.N.C.
Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus has announced that the R.N.C. computers were also subjected to hacking efforts, and that the F.B.I. informed him about these. As a result, the R.N.C. bolstered its cyber security precautions to protect its information. Priebus stated that the F.B.I. also notified the D.N.C. of intrusion efforts but apparently, Democrats made no effort to block attempts to breach its security.
The bottom line, as most anyone knows, is that cyber security is the responsibility of every computer user who has access to a network. Someone who leaves his wallet on the table of a restaurant has no cause to blame anyone else if he returns an hour later to find his wallet gone. Likewise, cyber espionage has been a fact of life for the United States and every other nation of the world for many decades. It’s completely preposterous for the Obama administration to cry, “Foul!” when the reckless neglect of Democrat party members resulted in a data breach and that collected data is made publicly available. But when the data released is confirmed to be true, any complaints fall moot.
In 2015, the Chinese government was found to be behind a cyber intrusion into the computer systems of the Office of Personnel Management (O.P.M.), which allowed China to gain access to the personal information of some 22 million American citizens. The Obama administration imposed no sanctions against China for this breach.
Also in 2015, a consulting firm hired by Obama known as the One Voice Movement, was given $350,000 of taxpayer funds to engage in overt efforts in Israel to defeat Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in his reelection bid. Therefore, it is beyond hypocrisy for the Obama administration to blame Russia and impose sanctions for their attempts to influence our elections when there is no evidence that either Russia or Vladimir Putin was successful.
For more than 55 years, the liberal Democrat media has openly engaged in efforts to influence public opinion in order to give Democrats control of our government. The American people cannot depend upon these same media operatives to accurately report the truth about any political story.
Donald Trump has good reason to be highly skeptical about the conclusions drawn by the political leadership of the intelligence community, as do the American people. All of the bloviating by Obama administration officials is intended only to discredit the legitimate election of a Republican president.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.