June 30, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
21:09
3729 17 Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Election
After the New York Times issued a retraction to the often repeated claim that 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies claim that the Russian government "Hacked The Election" - the Russia narrative is dead. New York Times Retraction: "A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/us/politics/trumps-deflections-and-denials-on-russia-frustrate-even-his-allies.htmlYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Interesting news out of the New York Times today, although it's been known for a while in other areas.
This is the central tunnel support of the Russiagate myth.
Seventeen US intelligence agencies reportedly agreed that it was Russia that hacked into and distributed the emails from the DNC. Now, having profound effects on the election against Democratic interests by flipping a light switch on in the Democratic kitchen so you could see pretty much where all the bugs are.
So, this has been a central tenet repeated endlessly by Hillary Clinton.
Hey, is that true?
Or did you hear it from Hillary Clinton or CNN? So, the first question, of course, when you hear that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into the election...
I guess the first question for me is, why the hell are there 17 US intelligence agencies?
Oh, that's right!
Because government efficiency.
16 would be totally vulnerable.
18, well, I'm sure by this time next year.
Well, no, actually, I should say maybe not under Trump.
So this was reported forever and ever, and amen, but the New York Times has now retracted.
It only took them about, ooh, six months or so.
This came out June 29, 2017.
And they said, a White House memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia, referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election.
The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency.
The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
Okay, New York Times.
First of all, one of those is not even an agency.
It's just an overseeing body.
But anyway, let's move on.
So, as you, of course, remember, the Podesta emails and other emails from the Democrats were published on WikiLeaks and so on.
And all of these agencies seem to have said, oh, yeah, Russian hacking.
We know for sure.
Well, the first thing to remember, really, really important thing to remember, is that the DNC would not let the FBI examine its servers.
We've been hacked!
Can we see the servers?
No.
I mean, so the FBI had to rely on, like, a third-party group that was paid for by the DNC. I don't know how bizarre this is.
It's hard to put it into words.
Hey, police!
My house was robbed!
Okay, we're coming over to examine it and look for fingerprints.
No!
Whatever you do, don't do that!
You can just maybe ask my private investigator for whatever he feels fit to reveal to you.
Ugh.
Now, why did they need this grab bag of 17 intelligence agencies?
Well, I guess if you're older than, say, one of my armpit hairs, then you have a little bit of skepticism when it comes to American intelligence agencies.
American, they are!
Although allegiance, I think, is open to question.
Agencies, they are!
Intelligent!
I think that's debatable.
Because a lot of people feel that intelligence agencies in America are mostly politicized hacks.
They had no idea about the fall of the Soviet Union, the imminent fall of the Soviet Union that happened decades ago.
No idea about 9-11, the radicalization of the Mujahideen.
They misread the Arab Spring completely, and they got WMDs completely wrong when it came to Iraq.
But hey!
No biggie.
Only a million Iraqis dead.
Tens of thousands of Americans dead.
An entire region destabilized.
And a massive wave of migrants going into Europe.
You know, sometimes you just call it wrong.
Although that wasn't an accident, which we'll get to in a few minutes.
So, people thought that the 17 security agencies verifying that Russia hacked the election, that it was a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE. Now that...
It's a sort of meta-narrative or meta-story, meta-analysis that gets the views of the entire intelligence community and includes dissents, right?
I mean, intelligence is not exactly a science.
And trying to figure out where hacks come from, not exactly a science.
Let me give you an example so you can really feel this viscerally.
You know, ever since the NSA lost control of all its hacking tools...
Good job, NSA! I'm really, really glad you're there to help protect Americans from danger in the world.
Here, terrorists.
Here, hackers.
Here's all the known tools in the universe to look up the rectum of everyone's operating system.
Bend over, turn and cough and say, you got me!
These people who have the NSA's tools, you can look at this side into Vault 7, they are encrypting people's hard drives and then demanding.
Bitcoins in order to decrypt or to provide the key to decrypt people's hard drives.
So this is how tough it is to find and get hackers.
These people have a helpline.
You can call them up and you can get help on how to figure out to get them the bitcoins in order to get your files decrypted.
That's how brazen they are.
That's how hard they are to track down.
So the idea that you can figure out where a hack is coming from without even looking at the service directly Come on.
I mean, I'm no security expert.
I've been working around computers low these 40 years.
For my younger viewers, that's pretty much since they were in Abacus.
And the idea, you're just going to, yeah, remote control, figure out who hacked somebody.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
So if you're going to get a full assessment, you want to include all the caveats, all the dissents, you know, all the things that make low IQ heads go...
Because everybody just wants a clear cut.
Yeah, Russia hacked the election.
And as soon as we prove that, Donald Trump is gone.
That's just what idiots want to hear.
Or Democrats, wait.
Ah, that joke's too easy.
All right.
Now, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and Obama's CIA Director, John Brennan, here boys, here boys, they said in sworn congressional testimony, because when Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee, this was on May 8th, That the Russia hacking claim came from a, and I quote, Special Intelligence Community Assessment, or ICA. You know, because you just can't have enough acronyms when you're talking to these guys.
So this Special Intelligence Community Assessment was produced by, oh, hand-picked analysts from the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI. A coordinated product from three agencies, CIA, NSA, and the FBI. Not all 17 components of the intelligence community, the former DNI said.
Okay.
This again, if you can tie your shoes, you should really have some alarm about all of this.
Because the question is, why do you need to handpick people?
At all.
I mean, you're paying all these people.
Why are you just, hey, are you very much anti-Russian?
Okay, you're in.
Are you pro-Trump?
You're not in.
Oh, are you really pro-Hillary?
Okay, you're in.
You understand that this is how these kinds of disasters happen over and over again.
And everyone knows this is how you get these kinds of disasters to happen.
Clapper further admitted, That the analysts who produced this assessment on the alleged Russian hacking on January the 6th, they were hand-picked!
Hand-picked!
On the basis of what?
Right?
From the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. None of which had access to the server.
None of them had access to the server to be able to perform an independent analysis.
So, I just want you to understand the layers of confusion, Mobius strip obfuscation, general brain thuggery, lower London intestine map of the subway that's going on here.
So, in order to say from these guys, we think Russia hacked into the DNC and then, I guess, gave all of the information to WikiLeaks, who then published it and it changed the election and blah blah blah blah blah.
Okay.
This is how it's supposed to have been assessed.
This is how people arrived at this conclusion.
You got third-party information about a possible hack from a highly complicated, confusing, and shadowy internet, which was supposed to be a group, or in this case two groups, that might have something to do with Russia.
That really is amazing.
And the report that these guys produced, they didn't say that Russia did the hack or anything like that.
They said, well, the hack is kind of like a type that we think Russia may have done in the past.
I mean, come on.
You can't.
You can't take any of this stuff seriously in any way, shape or form.
Handpicked!
Did I mention that?
You handpick the analysts.
What you're really doing is handpicking the conclusion.
Right?
So, are they going to deliver some one-sided report that serves your political agenda?
Great!
You're on the team!
I mean, this has been done in the past.
You know, there was...
Back in the Reagan administration, they determined that...
There was going to be an attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terrorism from the Soviet Union.
They were wrong completely and totally.
Soviet bogeyman for the win!
for the loss of everyone, including your freedoms and basic sanity and trust in your fellow human beings who may believe all of this claustrophobic brain fart nonsense.
So the important thing is, of course, if you want a realistic assessment, you could, of course, cast your net wider to get the broader intelligence community feedback.
And is it possible to incorporate...
Dissent, reservations, hesitations, counter-arguments in the final report, right?
And the reason this is particularly true after the horrifying results of the intelligence community's analysis, or at least their published analysis, of Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Well, they really tried to guard against, I guess it didn't last very long as these things tend not to, against stove piping, which is kind of drilling down, getting the answer that you want, And then discarding all counter evidence and all pushback and all hesitations and all caveats.
Hmm.
I guess that's what happens if you rely on heavily pro-democratic polling for your lead up to the election.
It is horrible.
This happened under George W. Bush, right?
2002, National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq's WMDs.
There were State Department dissents and other intelligence dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.
They stripped out all the hesitations and it's like, oh, it's a slam dunk, Mr.
President!
So, it wasn't four agencies.
It wasn't even three agencies.
It was a hand-picked group of analysts selected from these three agencies for political purposes, in my humble opinion.
Ah, not any particular agencies.
Just some special committee picking their friends to deliver up the political conclusions that they want.
Ah.
Even these three different agencies, they didn't do full agency investigations and just happened to come to the same conclusion.
That didn't happen.
Oh, also, just a little point here.
There actually is no evidence that the DNC was hacked.
Now, WikiLeaks claims that the information they got Was an inside job.
That it was leaked from the inside.
Hillary Clinton has blamed the Macedonians.
And John Podesta even admitted that he was the victim of an ordinary phishing password change scam.
You know, your password has been changed.
You need to click on this and change your password.
Right?
That's not really a hack, exactly, as it is having no basic concept of intelligent security.
So...
Now, here's the irony, and this story does have many layers of irony.
So, Obama was told of this supposed foreign meddling or Russian meddling long before the election.
Hmm, interesting.
Well, it turns out, some guy from the FBI... Thought or had indication that there was some piece of malware on a DNC server.
So he called up a guy at the DNC, didn't turn out to work for a DNC, just some third party, and said, oh, you've got to run the scan.
The guy found nothing and said, well, you know, I didn't take it that seriously because there's just no way I could have figured out if he really was an FBI agent or not.
Because apparently the FBI is not in the phone book.
You can't call people and say, does this guy work there?
Can I talk to him?
And the FBI agent kept calling back and saying, have you dealt with it?
And the guy said, well, I just never got around to calling him back because I didn't have anything to report.
I mean, I don't even know what to say about all of that.
But anyway, Obama was told of this meddling long before the election.
Why did Obama not take any action?
Well, the answer to that...
We may never know.
The answer to that, I believe, is that they did not want to provide Donald Trump with an excuse in the case of a close election to say, I'm not accepting the results of the election because there was all of this foreign government slash Russian slash somewhere out on the interwebs hacking of the election, right?
Because they heard about it.
They didn't go public with it for quite some time because, again, they thought they had the election sewn up.
They believed all of the pollsters.
So they thought they had the election sewn up.
Hillary's in like Flynn.
We've got it.
Nothing to worry about.
So let's not start talking about foreign meddling in the election, because that might delegitimize our own candidate.
And she's going to win anyway.
So let's keep it on the down low.
Just keep it on the down low.
The idea that it was a coordinated attack, there were two supposed Russian hacking groups, One called Fancy Bear, the other one called Cozy Bear.
Now that, again, bear, is kind of the...
Well, I guess it's two things.
One, it's the Russian animal bear, and the other is it's Miley Cyrus' general costumes when it comes to her videos.
And so these two supposed hacking groups, they weren't coordinated at all.
They took many of the same documents.
They seem to be relatively unaware of each other.
It does not appear to be a very well-coordinated attack.
And they, I don't know, just come up with this goofy stuff.
You know, like one document published by Guccifer 2.0 had Russian symbols on it.
Because, you know, it's just impossible to get a version of word in Russian if you're not working for the Russian government and...
I mean, this is just...
It's goofy.
Goofy stuff.
And we all know this.
If you know anything about computers, you don't have to be a security expert.
You can mask yourself as someone else.
You can spoof yourself as coming from somewhere else.
You can get code fragments and stick them in your own hackware.
I mean, it's...
If there's a call center where you can call for hackers, they're pretty hard to find.
I think that's fairly...
If I leave the case.
So Obama's national security team discussed a number of scenarios and what they should do about it.
But one that they discussed the most was this narrative, right?
That Mrs.
Clinton wins, but it's fairly close.
And then Trump says, oh, no, no, the vote was rigged because you said that there was all this hacking of the election.
So we need to have an investigation.
We need to do it again.
And they didn't.
Want to end up in that situation.
So they kind of buried this for quite a long time.
And this, of course, kind of backfired on them, right?
Because they didn't want the threat of Russian interference in the American election to delegitimize Hillary Clinton's ascension to the throne.
But then when Trump got in, they had to really hit that narrative hard.
Now he's illegitimate because of Russian hacking and so on.
So, how do they know?
They didn't even have access to the servers.
IP addresses are easily spoofed.
Code signatures are easily spoofed.
You can put language codes in anywhere.
And they didn't want to investigate.
They didn't want to delegitimize their candidate.
And they thought they were a shoo-in.
And here's the thing, too.
How did Russia hack the election?
Let's say they did.
I don't think they did even remotely, but let's say they did.
What happened?
Well, a bunch of factual information about the Democrats got to WikiLeaks and was released for the general public.
What was revealed?
How was the election hacked?
Well, facts about the DNC were revealed to the American public.
Oh no!
We lost the election because the American public got facts about us!
And it's a funny thing too.
It's a funny thing too.
They're really, really concerned about someone hacking the election, getting secret files, getting confidential files, getting personal files.
I would argue, again, I'm no security expert, I think a fairly clear case could be made that the DNC email is somewhat slightly less important than the top secret information readily available to anyone with a knitting needle on Hillary's top secret toilet server.
You know, the server...
That she kept in her bathroom.
Yes!
A literal data dump.
So, if you're really, really concerned about security and privacy and not getting hacked, you can't have Hillary as president.
Because she bypassed a lot of security stuff and kept top secret files, pretty much open to the web, by her toilet.
And the other thing too.
Interference with the election.
Ooh, Russian bots!
I don't know.
Interference with the election?
How about the relentlessly pro-Hillary and anti-Trump narrative of the mainstream media?
How about the same in academia?
How about the FBI not inserting Hillary Clinton into that spinning glass shard that's supposed to hold Krypton criminals after they found out she'd spread-eagled all of America's secret information to the web?
And this, poking at Russia and poking at Russia and poking at Russia.
You know, Hillary Clinton said, ah, if Russia hacked us, well, we consider that an act of war!
Really?
Poking at Russia, poking at Russia, lying about Russia, in my humble opinion, provoking potentially World War III for what?
For political power?
For your pride?
For your career?
World War III? Really?
That's where you want to go?
To cover up your crap candidate and your crap candidacy?
World War III? Dear God, American intelligence agencies, you're supposed to fight terrorism.
Look in the mirror, if you even have any kind of reflection.
Do you ever wonder what you have become?
Listen to Nietzsche who says, be careful when you fight monsters that you do not become a monster.
So the narrative is over.
The narrative is done.
Now, of course, it's been branded into the minds of leftists and Democrats and fools.
Lo, these many months and a little tiny italicized correction On page 9000 of the New York Times, probably not going to do much to dislodge it.
But, you know, it does help to point out that it's all been lies and nonsense for the most part.
