Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping President-elect Donald Trump become president has more holes in it than a sieve?
Eloquent obfuscation has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions are dispelling some of the clouds.
Does the Russian government hack? Of course. Did it hack the emails of the Democratic National Committee? Yes, almost certainly. If Russian intelligence did not do so, this alone would constitute gross malfeasance, and its heads’ heads should roll – the more so, since the DNC was such easy pickings.
But that is not the question.
The Missing Link
It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC’s dirty tricks that marginalized Bernie Sanders and ensured that Mrs. Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was “the Russians” who gave those very damaging emails to WikiLeaks – QED, as we used to scribble beneath the proof of a theorem in geometry.
At President Obama’s January 18 press conference, he admitted, “the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.” [Emphasis added}
In sum, this is what Obama has told us, as he goes out the door today:
1-“...based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. ... the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” (Dec. 16, 2016 press conference).
2-“...the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.” (Jan. 18, 2017 press conference).
As I suggested to RT viewers right after the last press conference,
the reason WikiLeaks might have been “not witting” might be that it was quite sure it was not a “conduit” for hacking by the Russians or anyone else. Is it not clear that WikiLeaks is quite capable of acquiring such information all by itself – as proved by the files LEAKED to them by Chelsea Manning on what apparently appeared to be Lady Gaga CDs.
Or, as former UK Ambassador Craig Murray has blogged under the title Stunning Admission from Obama on WikiLeaks:
“In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.
“Most crucially of all Obama refers to ‘The DNC emails that were leaked.’ Note ‘leaked’ and not ‘hacked.’ I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense ‘Russian hacking’ story.”
So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation for which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame “mainstream” media take steno and regurgitate ad nauseam.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons