A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge," provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking theory is based, as well as a point-by-point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections or hacked the servers at the DNC.
Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report:
Assange ... has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a non-state player...
ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party
HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia...
HANNITY: ... or anybody associated with Russia?
ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly... over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party...
("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge," Skip Folden)
Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?
No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "Nowhere in the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that.
As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:
"(Murray) flew to Washington, D.C. for emails...He claims he had a clandestine hand-off ... near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation' and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
"Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists...
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).