The lack of detail demanded by Pelosi may simply mean the absence of credible evidence of Russian interference as well as the absence of Clapperesque officials to conjure it up.
August 3, 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR: Speaker Nancy Pelosi
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Did Russia Hack the DNC Emails?
Dear Madam Speaker:
After your intelligence briefing Friday, Politico reported that you were sharply frustrated by the lack of detail presented on “Russia’s continued interference in the 2020 election campaign.” You were quoted as saying you thought the administration was “withholding” evidence of foreign election meddling and added, “What I am concerned about is that the American people should be better informed.” We share your concern and, having followed this issue closely from the perspective of non-partisan, veteran intelligence officials, we are able to throw considerable light on it.
The narrative that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails in 2016 and gave them to WikiLeaks to hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has become an article of faith for about half of Americans — somewhat fewer than the number misled into believing 18 years ago that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — but it is still considerable.
Because of a bizarre, but highly instructive media lapse these past three months, most Americans remain unaware that the accusation that Russia “hacked” the DNC has evaporated.It turns out the accusation was fabricated — just like the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, some of the same U.S. officials were involved in both deceptions. For example, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, played a key role 18 years ago in covering up the fact that no WMD had been identified in satellite imagery of Iraq; more recently he helped conjure up evidence of Russian hacking.
We quote below the horse’s-mouth testimony of Shawn Henry, head of CrowdStrike, the cyber security outfit paid by the DNC, and certified as a “high-class entity” by FBI Director James Comey, to look into the “hacking” of the DNC. Mr. Henry admitted in sworn testimony on December 5, 2017 that his firm has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails were hacked — by Russia or anyone else. This testimony was finally declassified and released on May 7, 2020, but you will not find a word about it in The New York Times, Washington Post or other “mainstream” outlets. (We wonder if you yourself were made aware of Henry’s testimony.)
The original accusation achieved its purpose in fostering the belief that President Trump owed his election to President Putin, and thus is beholden to him. It also provided a degree of verisimilitude — as well as faux-righteous indignation — to support a host of punitive measures. “Russian hacking” was immediately used to justify President Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats/intelligence officers at the end of 2016. Those with a sharp anti-Russia axe to grind no doubt deemed this unnecessary diplomatic step felicitous, welcome collateral damage to ties between Washington and Moscow.
Now to the present — and specifically your suspicion that the administration is “withholding” evidence of foreign election meddling.
Full Disclosure: We veteran national security and intelligence professionals are nonpartisan and have a tendency to be blunt. We have been closely watching the play-by-play over the past four years and strongly doubt that our former intelligence colleagues are withholding evidence of Russian interference. We see a simpler explanation. The intelligence officials who trotted out copious “evidence” of Russian interference four years ago may still be writing op-eds and even books, but they are also under investigation. So a “once-burned-twice-shy” attitude is probably one factor in play.
More important, for obvious reasons the intelligence chiefs appointed by President Trump lack the incentive shared by their predecessors to hyperbolize and even manufacture “evidence” of Russian meddling in favor of Trump. In our view, this factor accounts largely for what you see as the lack of detail. In contrast, the legacy media, with a transparently shoddy record to defend on their “Russiagate” coverage, is still both hyperbolizing and manufacturing. Easy to do when you have a corner on the media market, as we indicate below.
In sum, this time around, senior intelligence and law enforcement officials have little incentive to manufacture/embellish evidence of “Russian meddling”, as was done four years ago by the former crew. And, again, to remind: the same thing happened in 2002/03 regarding the WMD alleged to be in Iraq, with some of the same dramatis personae responsible — but not held accountable.
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years after the fact that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) asserted that the attack on Iraq was launched “under false pretenses.” He described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
No Consequences for ‘Finding What Wasn’t There’
There were no consequences for those officials who lied about WMD in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld had put one of them, James Clapper, in charge of imagery analysis which, as you know, was the key to finding WMD. Clapper made a stunning admission in his memoir, Facts and Fears: Hard Truths From a Life in Intelligence. He wrote that “intelligence officers, including me, were so eager to help [Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld] that we found what wasn’t really there.”
Nevertheless, with a glowing recommendation from Obama confidant John Brennan, President Obama appointed Clapper director of national intelligence in 2010. He remained in that post for the remainder of Obama’s term despite having misled the Senate in March 2013 about what he later admitted was a “clearly erroneous” testimony, under oath, regarding NSA surveillance of Americans.
Here’s the rub: Clapper and those he conspired with have gone from blissful sans souci to apprehension, acutely aware that they may not have a stay-out-of-jail card this time around. With bloodhounds like U.S. Attorney John Durham sniffing around there is now the possibility of consequences for intelligence leaders who make stuff up — as they did during Russiagate v.1. Perhaps also consequences for former CIA Director Brennan who, together with Clapper orchestrated a rump Memo by “handpicked analysts” and called it an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” The “ICA” cannot bear close scrutiny.
Election “meddling” and “interference” are stretchy elastic terms. Your Democratic colleagues are correct in pointing out that recent intelligence warnings of election interference by China, Russia and Iran are so vague as to be “almost meaningless”. Given the reluctance of today’s intelligence leaders to create “non-existent” intelligence (as on Iraq and more recently on Russia), those members of Congress who insist that they be more “specific” on Russian interference are bound to become increasingly frustrated.
What we suggest is the obvious: namely, that the lack of desired detail may simply betoken the absence of credible specifics on significant Russian interference, and the absence of Clapperesque officials to conjure it up. In a word, today’s intelligence managers — unlike their predecessors — are not likely to find Russia-indicting evidence that “wasn’t really there.”
‘Specifics’ in 2016: Russian Hacking
Four years ago, we had specifics. Yes, they were specifically wrong, but at least they were specifics. Those whose reading on these issues is limited to The New York Times and other Establishment media perforce lack adequate understanding about the shenanigans of 2016. If we want the American people to be better informed, this is a big problem — the more so, since many of the main culprits in corporate media are still at it. In an interesting coincidence on Friday, when you had your intelligence briefing, NY Times’s chief Washington correspondent David Sanger threw a long kitchen-sink smear at President Trump in a piece titled “Trump Still Defers to Putin, Even as He Dismisses U.S. Intelligence …”
You may recall that it was Sanger, together with NY Times colleague Judith Miller, who blew the loudest bugles to “charge” into Iraq to destroy the (non-existent) WMD there. Sanger is still taking dictation from his anonymous “current and former officials.” In Friday’s article, he noted that “four years ago this week, the CIA was coming to the conclusion that Russia was responsible for the hacking of the DNC’s servers”, and linked to an article he co-authored at the time titled “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C.”
The Times highlighted Sanger’s article on Friday with a small front-page squib: “On Russia, He’s Consistent; President Trump Brushes Off U.S. Intelligence, and resurrects same mantras from the 2016 campaign. Page A11”. On that inside page Sanger repeats his own consistent mantra about Trump’s consistency: “Say this about Mr. Trump’s approach to Moscow. It has been consistent.”
Sanger’s observation amounts to a poignant, if unintended, irony. His mantra regarding “Russian hacking” has been nothing if not consistent. We are reminded of Emerson’s observation: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” … and, one might add, adored also by journalists with an important line to defend — in the face of growing evidence to the contrary of its speciousness.
Sanger and other media sophists that have insisted that the Russians hacked the DNC are unlikely to relent any time soon — truth be damned. The “Russian hack of the DNC”, after all, was the cornerstone of the Russia-gate story; it is simply too big to fail.
Verifying the absence of WMD in Iraq, it turns out, was a relatively discrete issue that had to be acknowledged — however grudgingly — because, in Clapper’s own words, he had “found what wasn’t really there.” So even Rumsfeld’s nostrum that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” had to be discarded. There were no WMD in Iraq. Period.
Not As Easily Grasped As No WMD
The issue is not so clear-cut regarding the unrelenting Sangeresque claims that Russia hacked the DNC. We continue to encounter questions like, “Are you saying the Russians don’t hack, and that they did not try to hack the DNC!?” No, the Russians hack all the time, as do other major powers, including the United States, and the DNC presumably was one important target.
What we in VIPS have been asserting since late 2016, though, is that there was/is no evidence that the Russians hacked those DNC emails, which were so prejudicial to Mrs. Clinton, and gave them to WikiLeaks. Sorry, we are aware that James Clapper “handpicked” (his word) some analysts from CIA, FBI, and NSA, who in turn “assessed” — sans evidence — that Russia did it. That does not do it for us.
The bombshell admission by CrowdStrike’s Shawn Henry on December 5, 2017 — not made public until May 7, 2020 — that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails were hacked is definitive. That this revelation has been suppressed by The New York Times and other “mainstream media” for three months now speaks volumes.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity cut its teeth on February 5, 2003 with an afternoon Memorandum for President Bush critiquing Colin Powell’s UN speech earlier that day. We explained to President Bush the inadequacies of Powell’s remarks, and pointedly warned that, were the U.S. to attack Iraq, “the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic”. (We know that in October 2002 you had voted against authorizing Bush to make war, but also that 81 of your Democratic colleagues voted for it.)
Skipping ahead to 2016, when we saw allegations, without convincing evidence, that the Russians were responsible for “hacking” the DNC emails to influence the election, we immediately smelled a rat. We issued our first related VIPS Memo expressing our misgivings on December 12, 2016.
Embedded in that memo is a short tutorial on the difference between a hack and a leak. Included also were eight charts, most of them disclosed by Edward Snowden, depicting the relevant NSA collection programs and how emails are traced over the Internet. What we already knew of the technology (two former NSA technical directors are VIPS members and were heavily involved in our analysis) presaged what we learned on May 7 from CrowdStrike’s boss Shawn Henry. Here is the introductory sentence for our Memo of December 12, 2016:
“As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.”
Our most recent VIPS Memo was addressed to Attorney General Barr on June 5, 2020. See this excerpt:
“Not until May 7, 2020, when secret testimony to the House Intelligence Committee from late 2017 was made public, did it become completely clear that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked — by Russia or by anyone else. Seventeen months earlier, on Dec. 5, 2017, the president of CrowdStrike, former FBI cyber-crimes unit director Shawn Henry, admitted this in sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. This is how he answered a leading question from ranking member Adam Schiff:
Mr. Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? … when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). … There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
Technology Phobia: Not an Excuse
In both of those memos, and in several others between 2016 and 2020, we made a concerted effort to explain the technical details in terms most non-technical people can easily grasp. We had become painfully aware of the widespread tendency to avoid reading our analyses on the assumption (pretense?) that the technical detail was too complicated. It isn’t.
Again, full disclosure: we are, of course, aware that the Russia-hacked-the-DNC-emails-and-gave-them-to-WikiLeaks mantra has acquired the status of near-papal infallibility. And we know that our forensic analyses, even though unrefuted and based on the principles of science, will continue to strike a discordant note — not only with the Clappers of this world but also with many among many otherwise well informed members of Congress. (We have just about given up on the corporate media.)
We also foresee that our findings will probably not be welcome. As hardened veterans analyzing these kinds of sensitive issues over decades, we are accustomed to being forced into the role of the proverbial skunk at a picnic. We are not deterred. We still adhere to the old ethos for intelligence analysis (in contrast to intelligence operations) of telling it like it is, without fear or favor. The truth is what matters; and, again, we share your desire that the American people become better informed.
Should you have any follow-up questions, we are at your disposal.
Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black, Senator of Virginia, 13th District (2012-2020); Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator.
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (retired) and Defense Intelligence Agency (retired)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Thank you for this. While it does some good for my optimist in me, it feeds more pie to my pessimist’s perception: We are so far off track, that the only way we can save this country is to turn over the capitol to the Smithsonian, build barracks for elected officials in Nebraska, put flea collars on the must have blood DOD maggots (according to anonymous sources, maggots hate flea collars) , divide the country into ten-ish more-manageable countries, run ALL the too big to fails through a methane-burning shredder, dip the Fed in turpentine, hold a Fahrenheit 451 Party using that sticky mess and MSM woodies for bonfire fuel, and reverse direction in all oval track motor car races. Still not sure what to do with the ambient flatulence.
Apart from the allegations against Russia – is there evidence that a large number of voters changed their minds one way or another during the 2016 campaign due to the publication of the DNC e-mails on Wikileaks?
Hard to say, but buried in all the lies and obfuscated from the voters was the fact that the veracity of the Wikileaks releases were never challenged by Clinton or by the DNC. And just what did they show? That Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, that she was provided debate questions in advance by Donna Brazille, and showed her to be a craven puppet of Wall Street.
No, the Mueller report said they couldnt substantiate any vote changes!
A comment on technology phobia. When I read the assessment of possibility (actually, the lack of it) of the download of e-mails by remote hackers, it hinged on the estimate of transmission speed that did not seem that excessive to me. With good connection, you can download a gigabyte quite quickly, so one could quibble about possible transmission speeds given the network connections that DNC computers had, and and a putative hacker could have.
Characteristically, the “technical critics” that I have seen challenged only the reliability of the metadata, which is a generic semi-technical argument, so they could be technophobic too. It is possible that “tech experts” who creating “Russian Hacking” and/or defended it were at best technical writers, people responsible for vocabulary and grammar, with no knowledge of different types of networks and transmission delays and assorted details that are involved.
I was wondering why there is no mention in the article about the possible involvement of Seth Rich and the possibility that it was he that downloaded the data on to a usb drive and passed it on toWikiLeaks?
It seems to be taboo.
It is a speculation. However, I lived in Chicago in a period before huge drop in crime rate, so I head quite a bit of first or second hand stories of mugging, and the “mugging” of Seth Rich was strangely ineffective and atypical. “But as a simple killing, it was obviously effective.
On a more general note, Hillary in particular and DNC in general were hugely controversial on political grounds, so it is easy to imagine a politically motivated insider. It is not like they were universally beloved, even within Democratic Party.
11:32 AM (3 hours ago)
to Helga, diane, jason, Elliot, Dennis, Gerry, tony, Barbara, Susan, paul, Marcia, Megan, Kesha, Michael, Dave, pat, suzanne, Lynne, me
Will Roger Stone/Bill Binney “RussiaGate” Expose Shake Up The 2020 Elections?
Political consultant Roger Stone and former technical director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting section of the National Security Agency (NSA) Bill Binney jointly appeared Saturday, August 1st, on aLaRouchePAC webcast challenging anyone in the world to disprove an explosive finding: Russia did not hack the DNC during the 2016 Presidential election campaign. (see below.) Stone, who along with Gen. Michael Flynn was subjected to one of history’s most egregiously illegal and outrageous prosecutions by “legal assassin” Robert Mueller, as part of the coup attempt against President Donald Trump, had sought to use an affidavit prepared by Binney, one of the most respected analysts in NSA history, as part of his defense, but was denied the right to do so.
“Consortium News is part of the media.” – Consortium News (in reply to Taras77)
Well, yes, and no. Regarding news media, there are two categories as far as I am concerned. There is the BS media. Here I speak of the mainstream media, i.e. ABC, BBC, CBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. There are a number of others, but I think you catch my drift.
Yes, Consortium News is part of the media, however there is a crucial distinction to be made. The BS media has a politically driven agenda, and the truth be damned. It is my opinion that Consortium News, and a (woefully) few others have a truth driven agenda, and politics be damned.
As it should be.
I do not think for one moment that Taras77 was trying to de-legitimize CN. Not for a moment. I believe that Taras77 had the BS media in mind when (s)he made that comment.
Well done. Carry on carrying on CN.
“(We wonder if you yourself were made aware of Henry’s testimony.)”
I found that question puzzling until checking that Pelosi didn’t become Speaker (again) until 2019. Even so, it doesn’t hurt (VIPS) to use every rhetorical device to try to make your appeal.
All House Committee’s have members from both parties present, and that is proved by the above recited exchange between Schiff and Henry. That that answer would not be shared with one of the House’s most powerful members (Pelosi,) not least because it was so crippling to the Democrat Russiagate narrative, seems preposterous.
This is a very minor point in this excellent petition for consideration, but, why suggest cover and concealment to such a battle-hardened political warrior? Let her cross the open ground of that self-laid political minefield on her own.
What? The Russians tried to damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances in 2016? You mean the same Hillary Clinton who helped them get a major chunk of our uranium reserves? Why, those ingrates!
Thank you CN and VIPS for this very significant exposé – not the first, I am well aware. Well, composed, cogent, truthful and straight to the points. All the realities missing from the MSM – and Congress.
Will Pelosi pay any attention??? Hmmm, now why do I have my doubties?? We, the general public, need her to, indeed we need her to make totally apparent that the Russiagate charade was nothing more than that. But that’s highly, highly unlikely to occur.
Asking Pelosi to do Trump a favour ?
The importance of the DNC emails was not how they were manipulated/hacked/leaked but what they said about the hypocrisy of the DNC and their frontrunner.
Anybody thinks Ukrainegate might have an influence this year ? Think Pelosi and the DNC took sufficient precautions this time.
Actually the only thing that would destroy the DNC chances is a mental health breakdown of their leading candidate.
Probability 50 % !
No problem, they just pick/appoint another candidate. The DNC decides the leading candidate.
VFE – yes those DNC email contents were the matter of *real* significance. But over here, in the USA, that content was ignored by the MSM (at least as represented by NPR/BBC World Service in this household) – as in totally ignored (after all, the content was politically explosive and thus had to be ignored). All of the MSM and its chitter chatter concentrated on whining HRC’s condemnation of “Russia did it; Russia did it.” Because that was what the DNC wanted the presstitutes to push, and push hard.
The released emails had a very small effect on the election. What Russiagate did for Hillary was give an excuse for her poor politics and campaign. She grabbed that cookie at the peril of fomenting another regime change war or insurrection, i.e. manufacture consent that Russia remains our mortal enemy. It worked.
Perhaps they have a body double already in training. Another method would be to create a quarrel and use it to refuse in-person debates.
No, what will destroy the Dem party candidate is the theft of the election through manipulation of the voting machines and their software. See reporting by Greg Palast. Actually, I regard the election as already over. Trump won.
BTW, the DNC already destroyed their chances by making sure the only candidate who would have beaten Trump, handily at that, (other than the above paragraph) was himself destroyed.
I fear Russiagate will never completely go away. Its to emotionally satisfying to disappear. Thimk of all the other idiotic conspiracy fictions which flourish, in spite of all evidence. Some commenters still believe Jews rule the world or the US, etc., etc.
You know, if the “Church of Hillary (Fundamentalist)” gives up on Russiagate, they’ll have to face up to their own mistakes in 2016, like nominating a unattractive candidate who ran a bad csmpaign. Clearly, they can’t bring themselves do that.
Even more so given the truly awful ickiness of the present DNC candidate (a candidate they forced onto the Blue Face supporters).
Not only did Hillary run a terrible campaign, both the FBI and State Department investigations concluded that she had been careless with classified information! Who would want a president with a record like that?
Yes, communications, written or visual are the prime methodology of totalitarian societies like the US. It reminds of the passage in 1984 where there was the announcement that the chocolate ration was to be raised from 30 grammes to 20 grammes per week, and no-one batted an eyelid. The passage goes as follows.
”There appeared that there had been demonstrations to thank Big Brother from raising the chocolate ration to 20 grammes a week. But only yesterday he (Winston) reflected, that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes per week. Was it possible that they (the population) could swallow that after only 24 hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons (Winston’s neighbour and party activist) swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the next table swallowed it fanatically, with a furious desire to track down, denounce and vaporize anyone who would suggest that last week the ration had been 30 grammes. Syme (the party intellectual) too, in some more complex way, involving double-think – Syme swallowed it. Was he (Winston) then alone in the possession of a memory?” chapter 5, pp.67/68.
I’m afraid that this is the impasse that our civilization has reached. Our oligarchies have the power to create an ersatz ‘reality’ in order to impose a suffocating control over their empire. Reasoned argument, demonstrates the facts seems are as weak as straw and simply bounce off of the popular consciousness. Where it will end is anybody’s guess.
Thank you VIPS.
Pelosi is not interested I truth, only in playing politics to advance her own interests.
Third in succession, she’s in line for the Oval if the contested election drags on past inauguration. Between political malfeasance by both parties, self-interested corporate media, scorched-earth politics by both sides, and not least of all a raging pandemic it may very well be up to the Supremes (unfortunately not Diana Ross) to “decide” the election. Which is another reason the GOP is desperate to jam someone in Ginsberg’s slot before November.
Talk about sinecure – Pelosi has been in Congress for, like, forever…. Not as if she needs the $$$. But hey, every few thousand more can’t go amiss. Especially when tha gets them for decades…And I’d bet that she (like the rest of the DNC) wouldn’t mind if, come Jan 2021, there’s no elected persona into the WH…
It is good to get the truth out even if the memo was sent to the biggest failure ever when it comes to a leader of the House. There was impeachment that should have happened earlier and when it didn’t, I knew the card had been fully laid at last.
I suspect the senders of this memo are aware of this, and so the memo isn’t really intended for her. Her ears are filled with wax.
I appreciate the memo nonetheless and I have made efforts to talk with my neighbors about the sorry state of things. Most of them seem to agree.
Just did a search on Fox and CNN for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Crickets, as expected.
It had been determined (by 2017) that the DNC server hadn’t been hacked in the first place — much less, by Russia. Check back on that point. Computer forensics experts had determined that someone with direct physical access to those computers had downloaded a massive number of files onto ordinary flash drives, which were then passed along. In other words, it was a leak, not a hack. Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the election outcome. In spite of much Dem voter opposition to the Clinton right wing, Trump was so alarming that Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Trump is president because he got the most electoral votes. Democrats already lost 2020 because they drove away too much of their former voting base to have a chance, first with their war on the poor, then with the (insanely reckless) Russiagate scheme.
Indeed – although I would argue that it was the WH/Congressional/Corporate-capitalist-imperialist war on the working classes, many of whom had indeed voted for Obama at least once, some twice. All to no avail – i.e. no real change to the socio-economic status quo (as if Obama were really into changing anything that would upset the way the scales are loaded).
Yes, it was/is the (continued) existence of the Electoral College that worked against HRC – at least in part because she a) insulted the people in those very significant (Electoral College wise) states: “deplorables” remark: b) couldn’t be arsed to campaign in them (well, the working folks there equaled deplorables, didn’t they?
WHY have the Blue Faces not done their utmost to rid the (un) democratic system of the US of this deliberately constructed stumbling block to anything approaching democracy? (To be closer still to a true democracy there would need to be many more political parties, and NO money involved at all in the political process… And that’s as likely to happen as the fairy godmother appearing for us all.)
Why can’t I comment on Ray’s Facebook post? I want to publicize VIPS work and the following:
If you really want to know about foreign interference in US government, watch and listen:
see: Schumer, Pelosi, & Israeli billionaire Haim Saban at 2018 IAC conference on youtube.com/watch?v=yQBPq6v70yI
Gertrude Stein said it best. There’s no there there.
Another brutally close shot across the bow by VIPS. Outstanding!
It’s refreshing just to see some enthusiasm for the truth, and some sanity in our insane world. We are becoming like the goldfish in the water that cannot discern the presence of the water because it is so immersed and surrounded constantly by it.
“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?” – David Foster Wallace
Those who solely get their view of the world from MSM literally can’t tell the difference between reality and the alternate reality that the media’s owners create for them. Case in point, the disgusting example of George W. Bush revered at a civil rights’ leaders funeral and participating as some kind of moral voice!? WTF? It’s a kind of vulgar display of their media power to even present that as anything appropriate or normal or morally right in any way shape or form, that he’s a good guy, considering the most horrific, horrible crimes of the WMD lies and illegal Iraq war, just to name one of his many presidential disasters. It exemplifies their arrogance to convince their viewers of absolutely anything, no matter how absurd or outrageous or bizarre. It’s literally as if, in the non-functioning brains of their consumers, the past does not matter, or even exist, at all. The truth does not matter at all. I find this to be fascinating and terrifying at the same time.
In the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I kept thinking and wondering “shouldn’t there at the very least, be the legal bar of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ for this evidence before you’re going to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people?’ And certainly there was more than reasonable doubt. We just have lost our bearings and foundational common sense as a country, we are unmoored mentally and able to be pushed in any direction by the owners of the MSM. The other important point and principle that I think applies is this – it’s reasonable to assume in all of these scandals or crimes that those who cover up the truth, are involved with the crimes and scandals by logic. They wouldn’t logically just be ignorant or incompetent journalists or media tycoons, which is a common misperception. They know exactly what they’re doing, so one can assume they are part of the crimes and scandals. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be making obvious conscious efforts to hide and cover up the truth. They would be doing the opposite, trying to get to the bottom of it, and uncovering the actual evidence and truth.
Why do you criticize the participation of Bush in the funeral of John Lewis, but don’t mention Obama or Clinton? There all guilty of the same war crimes.
Quite Aaron – although I would – tentatively raise the fact that Mr Lewis was very friendly with Israel (or as I prefer the Occupiers of All Palestine) and ignored, unlike Stokely Carmichael and Rap H Brown, how, the means by which Israel had come into being, how it was expanding: i.e. what it had done to the Palestinians and has continued to do to them since 1948. Apparently none of these human rights crimes bothered Mr Lewis…So unlike many in the BLM, and earlier the Black Power Movement (including Angela Davis) who have supported Palestinians, Mr Lewis ignored them and their continuing plight.
I found the never ending eulogizing – especially by such as Bush, Obama (Libya???), Clinton (Serbia???) rather nauseating because of this.
Seldom am I willing to correct those at Consortium News, so I won’t. I will add what may seem arrogant to others.
Consortium News is part of the actual truthful media and not to be confused with the fake MSM.
Thanks to VIPS for all they do!
Another excellent VIPS memo. For the evil ones, truth does not matter, only power. The “Mighty Wurlitzer” remains under the tight control of your former agencies and their masters. Pelosi knows it is all theater, but her TDS, combined with her service to the “Powers That Be”, trumps (excuse the pun) any interest in verifiable facts or evidence. And she also knows that none of you will ever get any MSM exposure to deliver the truth to the people. The number of serious citizens devoted to critical thinking is insignificant. The sheeple are lazy consumers of “infotainment”. They go from watching the nightly propaganda “news hour” to Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and some mindless sitcom. It is all the same to them. To quote Neil Postman of NYU, as a nation, we are “amusing ourselves to death.”
However hopeless our cause may be, I sincerely thank you for your efforts.
I doubt very much if this will ever be read or understood by the cretins currently dominating the “news” from the dimocrat cabal but it is excellent-it is a zinger which most of the sheeple should access and understand!
Again, I doubt this will be published by the media but it should be given wide dissemination some how, some way!
Consortium News is part of the media.
VIPS has made a bold move, and Consortium News, which clearly views itself, both reasonably and rationally, as part of the “media”, although certainly not a part of the “corporate media”, has not contributed to the “bizarre lapse” (which I consider far too kindly toward a corporate media clearly intent upon manipulating public consciousness in fact “official” policy, which is quite as much corporate-driven as are those media outlets owned by the same corporate interests who, ultimately, dictate the “official” policy), mentioned in the article.
I find it in no way surprising that the M$M suffer from constant and consistent “lapses” in terms of providing the public honest, factual, evidence-based information and critically necessary perspective.
The M$M do not want the people of the nation to actually understand what is going on and being done in their name, any more than does the political class, with its kabuki theater dramatics intended to deceive the many into believing the duopoly are oppositional, that democracy obtains and that the political class are but mere servants to the many.
Such myths as these are believed in even more fiercely than Russiagate or WMDs.
Of course, the elite will ignore what VIPS has to say, despite all the evidence which VIPS can readily produce, even as is done in this Memorandum.
Of course, what VIPS is doing not only reveals the whole Russiagate as fiction, as deliberate lies, but also makes clear that those responsible, at the very highest levels, gave their approval to the entire effort to use government agencies to excuse Hillary Clinton’s ignominious defeat in 2016 and, as well to try to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s win and the ability of the Trump administration to function effectively.
Frankly, the political class MUST ignore the truth, for it inevitably leads to what is nothing less than revealing scandalous behavior, that may well be criminal, that, should it be honestly pursued, might well lead to serious charges against not only members of certain governmental agencies, but to the executive levels of the previous administration.
Were there, for example, a serious investigation into a certain meeting at which, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates were present, when a “by the book” investigation of certain things, euphemistically described in a”stormy” phrase, was given the go-ahead, which the article appears delicately refer to, then things might very well become quite tense in a society already in advanced collapse.
The value of the article is not that it will encourage Pelosi to rethink things, but that the public may be reminded of, or be introduced to, information which the corporate media has hidden for years or, as in this case, for months.
The corporate media simply does not want the public to know certain things, anymore than do those elements of government also owned by the corporate class.
The M$M wishes to control what information the public may know.
That is narrative control.
And narrative control is about limiting the public conversation to very specific things, distractions, lies, monsters created, and policies of suspicion and warmongering.
VIPS is tossing spanners (wrenches) into “the works”, that the many might come to understand hoodwinkery, hypocrisy, corruption, and the function of damned lies.
C’mon CN, you know what they meant. It will be totally ignored or buried on page 27 in the 33rd paragraph in the corporate owned establishment press. Of course great independent media sources with integrity (such as CN) will cover it.