On Russian Hacking, The Only Narrative That Matters Is Truth
Authored by Davide Battistella,
Excuse me for wanting to point out the obvious, but sometimes the obvious gets very lost in the web of narratives spun by the master narrator inside the White House. Forgive me, but are we not losing the idea that the only narrative that really matters is that all of the information “LEAKED” was obtained through a simple fishing e-mail sent to John Podesta. See their own words here:
Somehow this has been converted into words like “HACKING” (ps it is not hacking when it involves your own ineptitude or stupidity) into “Russian actors”, “digital fingerprints” or any other slew of gobbledyspeak they can come up with for wanting desperately to hide a simple fact: the truth is in the e-mails.
Notice nobody is disputing the contents of the email leaks, they just want to complain about the fact that it was stolen by Russians, though if the passwords were freely given away it’s hard to call it hacking.
Just to be clear a hack is defined this way.
“Computer hacking refers to the practice of modifying or altering computer software and hardware to accomplish a goal that is considered to be outside of the creator’s original objective. Those individuals who engage in computer hacking activities are typically referred to as ‘hackers‘.”
That is completely different from entering an account to which a party freely gave away the password and downloading the data for say an “inbox”. So don’t confuse hacking with the granting of access through being ill informed.
The reason all of this becomes important is simple, it’s leading the world into potentially very dangerous conflict. This isn’t something that should be taken lightly and you have to go to the WHY? Why is it so important to divert people from the contents of the e-mails and point them instead to the way they were obtained. It’s for war mongering purposes.
The MSM is going right along with it too. Have we heard nearly as much about the theft and publication of Donald Trumps tax returns as published by the New York Times?
Who is investigating the “hostile actors” from within the IRS who might have illegally stolen, copied and provided documents to the New York Times who then did barley more that what Wikileaks did with the Podesta e-mails.
At least Wikileaks published a pristine, searchable archive, the kind you could search in your local public library. In a crowdsourcing age, it is incredible what can be uncovered in a shot amount of time.
But it is different now. Wikileaks expects “professional” journalists to do their jobs, pour through the information and uncover everything from the salacious, the banal and the illegal. Why did this not happen with the wikileaks, but it was all hands on deck to pour over illegally obtained tax returns of a private citizen. Perhaps MSM credibility is at the heart of the issue? Not sure.
People consume information differently now and have many outlets to weigh before forming an opinion and that is a narrative busting option.
There remains only one defense, attack the messenger, lie and divert attention. So you can’t dismiss the contents of the wikileaks, you can only call Assange a pedophile, place him under house arrest, tell the world that Russia did the following (and I am following your logic here “intelligence” community/narrative spinners)
- The Russians sent a phishing e-mail to John Podesta and he responded with his password.
- The Russians downloaded all the information in his inbox.
- The Russians found a third party who new Jullian Assange and arranged for that third party to deliver the contents of that archive to wikileaks.
- Wikileaks released the information day after day and about 120 million and Americans followed that story closely enough that based on that leak (and maybe the DNC one as well) decided that they could not vote democrat in the election.
- Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the electoral college by losing key “shoe in” democratic stronghold manufacturing states where jobs have been lost, people are hurting and decided voted for change, not because of those reasons but because somehow Russia managed to release true information to the American public.
While all this was happening President Obama knew about it and told Putin to “cut it out” or you he would be in trouble after the election, after we try some recounts and after we try to intimate the electoral college, but before I leave office. Maybe I will throw in a fake story from the Washington post that Russia tried to hack the power grid on Christmas day in Vermont as well, just to get folks really fired up.
This entire transition process demonstrates a complete lack of class and childish behaviour by the outgoing administration. That is the only way to describe it. Sore losers who demostrate abolutely no class, no respect for process or really for the American people who democratically elected Donal Trump in a fair process.
Folks don’t get bamboozled, remember, your President told you this when the narrative suited him.
“One of the great things about America’s democracy is we have a vigorous, sometimes bitter political contest and when it’s done, historically, regardless of party, the person who loses the election congratulates the winner, who reaffirms our democracy and we move forward.
That’s how democracy survives because we recognize that there’s something more important than any individual campaign. And that is making sure that the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself.
Because democracy, by definition, works by consent, not by force. I have never seen, in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place.
It’s unprecedented. It happens to be based on no facts; every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has ever examined these issues in a serious way, will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found, that — keep in mind, elections are run by state and local officials, which means that there are places like Florida, for example, where you’ve got a Republican governor, whose Republican appointees are going to running and monitoring a whole bunch of these election sites.”
That was on October 19th of 2016.