Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton, explaining her “Russia did it” strategy.
Just kidding, those words were of course famously uttered by Josef Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Reich Propaganda Minister; because at the very least, the Nazis were honest enough to know they had a Propaganda Minister and not a Press Secretary or Spokesman. The U.S. Government and the Democratic National Committee lack the intellectual honesty of the Third Reich, even if the latter is borrowing heavily from Goebbels own playbook.
“The Obama administration feared that acknowledging Russian meddling in the 2016 election would reveal too much about intelligence gathering and be interpreted as ‘taking sides’ in the race, the former secretary of homeland security said Wednesday.
‘One of the candidates, as you recall, was predicting that the election was going to be ‘rigged’ in some way,’ said Jeh Johnson, the former secretary, referring to President Trump’s unsubstantiated accusation before Election Day. ‘We were concerned that by making the statement we might, in and of itself, be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.’” Emmarie Huetteman hilariously wrote for the New York Times last night in a piece that sought to convey the anger some Democrats still harbor at the Obama regime for not disclosing the “details” of the “Russiagate” hypothesis sooner, even though the regime hadn’t had time yet to fabricate the lie.
And, note the subtlety there: when Trump made claims of election rigging, they were “unsubstantiated,” which is true. It is likewise true that the claim that Russia hacked into the DNC’s servers and then handed all those emails over to Wikileaks is unsubstantiated – and, also has the added problem of making no sense at all. The former minister of the Obama regime, however, still has a job to do it seems.
“Around mid-August, Mr. Johnson said, federal officials began hearing reports of ‘scanning and probing’ of some state voter database registries. In the weeks after, intelligence officials became convinced the Russians were behind those efforts, though he said it was not until January that they were ‘in a position to say’ that.
The administration formally accused the Russian government on Oct. 7, when Mr. Johnson and James R. Clapper Jr., then the director of national intelligence, released a statement saying the Russians had leaked information ‘intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,’” Huetteman wrote.
Here, Johnson is deftly combining two big lies into one massive one. The “leaked information” that was “intended to interfere with the U.S. Election process” was of course the emails from the DNC itself that showed how the DNC didn’t just intend to, but actually did interfere with the United States’ process of democratically electing candidates during the primary season. There has never been a credible link between Russia and the DNC’s emails, never.
The “scanning and probing” he’s referring to were unsophisticated efforts by some hacker or hackers – never proven to be Russian – to launch a spear-phishing attack against a company that made and maintained voting equipment. That company had contracts in eight states for the 2016 election and Hillary won five of those anyway. Furthermore, there was no evidence the spear-phishing attack altered a single vote on any machine. Johnson is very simply lying.
Political theater is very important to all fascist regimes, so, the Democrats had to maintain the illusion that their farcical narrative is actually reality while grilling Johnson before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday.
“That was not soon enough for some Democrats, who have criticized the Obama administration for waiting until a month before the election to reveal its concern. Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the committee’s senior Democrat, pressed Mr. Johnson to explain their rationale.
‘Why wasn’t it more important to tell the American people the length and breadth of what the Russians were doing to interfere in an election than any risk that it might be seen as putting your hand on the scale?’ Mr. Schiff asked. ‘Didn’t the public have a compelling need to know?’
Asked why former President Barack Obama did not make his own announcement that a foreign power was meddling in the election process, Mr. Johnson suggested administration officials believed just his involvement would inherently politicize the facts.
‘We were very concerned that we not be perceived as taking sides in the election, injecting ourselves into a very heated campaign or taking steps to delegitimize the election process and undermine the integrity of the election process,’ he said,” Huetteman wrote.
Just who the hell is supposed to believe this bullshit? Obama was already deeply involved in the 2016 election, pushing hard for his third term in office to be carried out by Clinton. Wouldn’t waiting until the election was just a month away do more to politicize the “facts” than getting it out of the way sooner and giving voters a chance to forget about it as they shift focus to the next big flashy campaign promise or embarrassing verbal or twitter gaffe by Trump?
The reason the Obama regime waited was that it took until then for them to decide that just insisting the Russians did everything was going to be the strategy going forward; facts be damned, just repeat the lie. And boy, does Johnson do just that in the very next ‘graph.
“Noting that the hacking happened ‘at the direction of Vladimir Putin himself,’ Mr. Johnson said he was moved to try to shield the nation’s election system by the ‘unprecedented’ nature of Russian interference in the last election.
“’What I mean is that we not only saw infiltrations, but we saw efforts to dump information into the public space for the purpose of influencing the ongoing campaign,’ he said, referring to the disclosure of hacked emails.”
Here, Johnson is expertly aping Goebbels and swept Ms. Huetteman along for the ride. There is no evidence Putin directed the “hack” because there is no evidence that the DNC’s servers were ever hacked into from outside. The emails Wikileaks published were leaked to them by an inside source who is now very likely dead; no evidence has ever surfaced to support either lie spoken by Johnson.
And let’s try to remember, he’s up there crying about information that was put into the public space to supposedly influence the campaign, meaning the timing of the email release was somehow choreographed to be damaging – as Clinton herself has insisted – which would suggest not just collusion between Wikileaks and Putin, but outright control of the former by the latter. There’s no evidence of that, either. And, said information was only damaging because it showed the absolute corruption of the Democratic Party – and indeed, American voters do have a right to know that one of the two corrupt parties is more corrupt than the other. Julian Assange is, once again, the real hero here.
At the very least, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) seemed to grow tired of Johnson’s non-stop parade of lies and tried to point out one of the massive holes in the absurd theory the DNC expects Americans to believe.
“Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is helping to lead the committee’s investigation into Russian interference, asked Mr. Johnson why a victim — in this case, the D.N.C. — would not turn over evidence of a crime.
‘If they had turned the server over to you or Director Comey, maybe we would have known more,’ Mr. Gowdy said,” Huetteman wrote.
Valid question and valid point, both, for Mr. Gowdy there. Naturally, this earned a really bitchy reply.
“’I’m not going to argue with you, sir,’ Mr. Johnson said. ‘That was a leading question, and I’ll agree to be led.’”
Only, it wasn’t. A leading question presupposes the answer and is phrased in a way to elicit it; like a cop asking “how much have you had to drink?” instead of “have you had anything to drink?”
If the DNC “knew” Russia hacked its servers, indeed, why not come forward? Why not turn over the entire system to the FBI etc. to be combed over to find out where the “hack” originated from? It is very reasonable to conclude that, had that happened, “maybe we would have known more.”
Unless, of course, the DNC didn’t turn “evidence” of the “Russian hack” over to investigators because there was no hack by anyone, let alone Russia, and no “evidence” other than that which could be later fabricated after the fact using CIA and NSA tools that can make any bit of web traffic appear to have come from wherever CIA or NSA wants it to appear to have come from.
Huetteman concludes her piece with some comments that are hilariously ironic.
“Lawmakers were focusing largely on an issue they agreed presented a profound problem for the country: foreign interference in the nation’s democratic process and its pernicious effect on voter confidence.
‘Whether our guy won or next time your guy wins,’ said Representative Tom Rooney, Republican of Florida, if interference persists ‘then we really do cease being the country that we are,’” the NYT article concludes.
For a person who represents a government that holds the world record for deposing foreign heads of state and installing puppet dictatorships friendly to it to whine about another country attempting to interfere with our election process is dumb enough; that the “interference” he’s whining about is a lie created and perpetuated to soothe Hillary’s hurt feelings is beyond imbecilic.