Home | About | Donate

Despite Being Taken as Fact, 'Case Against Russia' Rests on Insufficient Proof


Despite Being Taken as Fact, 'Case Against Russia' Rests on Insufficient Proof

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

The case that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer network and interfered with the 2016 U.S.


Oh...oh no, that's just not true.

Please, everyone, click on the link, because that's not at all what it says, and I'm really disappointed that CD would do this.

The ODNI is talking about the conclusion that the hack was done to assist Trump.

The ODNI does NOT dispite that Russia was behind the hack.

These are separate issues that disingenuously being conflated by far too many people already. Reporting should clarify a situation, not make it murkier. C'mon, CD, you're better than that.


Vox, can you cite evidence from the ODNI that goes beyond allegations or 'conclusions' that they draw based on circumstantial evident that proves the Russian government hacked the DNC emails?


Apparently the New York Times chooses to ignore the letter put out by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/ The letter clearly explains the difference between hacking and leaking, and that hacking is traceable. I guess The Times is using the old scheme of repeating the same tired old tale over and over hoping it will stick.


As Democrat Party's races to the right and promotes McCarthyist denigration of those who cast doubt on the unsubstantiated claim that the Russian government used Wikileaks as a 'weapon of mass destruction' against the Clinton campaign, the mainstream media seems to be parroting this propaganda.

Even the 'progressive' media has largely ignored the assessment of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked:



Hey Steve,

That's not the issue here. The issue is that the CD article misrepresented what the Reuters article said. That's what I wrote about. If you click on the link in the article, you'll find that the ODNI does not dispute that Russia hacked the DNC, but only the conclusion drawn by the CIA that it was done with the intention of aiding the Trump campaign.


Given that so many experts in and out of the government have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking it is reasonable to assume that Russia is behind the hacking. The conclusion is based on circumstantial evidence. That is proof but it would be preferable to find a "smoking gun."


Those damn Russkies. Seems like there are 3 separate questions here. 1. Did the Russian government hack the DNC? 2. Did they do it to hurt the presidential chances of Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump? 3. Did it work? I have heard the first is true...but they haven't released any evidence that I have seen. The Russians and Assange both say they didn't do it..but maybe they did. The second two questions are certainly up for debate, haven't seen any proof on those either.

I personally think the Democrats lost because the DNC tried to shove an unappealing candidate down the throats of the voters, and made many strategic mistakes. But that's just me.



If you wanted to cover your tracks and blame someone else, what would you do?
Maybe insert metadata with Russian clues?

If you were a sophisticated state actor...
Would you leave the incriminating metadata there for everyone to see?

Something smell to high heaven.
Especially since the "hack" was the result of a phishing email that ANYONE would have seen through.
Smells like an internal leak to me with a nice Fake News spin to get what you really want.


You are not the only one. :grin:


This is not a criminal trial, the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance is the standard. Hillary has repeatedly been convicted here on far less. In fact, she has often been convicted here when the evidence was, yes, faked. All those dead bodies stacked in her basement.


Hmm? I used to think ...Hmmm...was the sound right wingers make when they try to think.


"crazed contempt for Clinton"? Does that indicate the bias of this whole piece? I don't see contempt for Hillary Clinton as crazy at all, any more than contempt for Trump is. Just because he and his whole tribe are a horror doesn't mean she would have been good, or that Assange's entirely understandable hostility to her means he hacked the election--oh excuse me no, it was the nassty commie RUSSKIES who did it.


"Do we want to make major foreign policy decisions with a belligerent nuclear power based on suggestions alone, no matter how strong?"

Hey, the government said they had absolute proof that Iraq had WMDs too. pffff


On the other hand we all KNOW Zionists control the US government. Sheesh, how often have you had to advise us of that fact?


Getting a little defensive, wildfire?


Both hacked and leaked would be Wikileaks methodology.


No "Hmmm" is sound of the rapid beating of my Liberal Bleeding Heart.


Biddle: "You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired."

It did not backfire. The lie was precisely what the neocons needed to turn Iraq to rubble. Just like the same neocon coalition, with their neoliberal brothers and sisters onboard, are pushing to escalate their confrontation with Russia now, a confrontation that began the day Bill Clinton decided to bring eastern European nations into NATO regardless GHW Bush's assurances no such thing would happen.

We can't have peace breaking out. That would be way too costly to the military industrial complex and the political puppets who live off those industries' political donations.

Making nice with Russia wouldn't just ruin the cashflow from the enormous arms buildup on Russia's northwestern, western and southwestern borders. It would also go a long way toward ending the "civil war" in Syria, not only another cashcow of arms sales but also the final step in the neocons' wet dream of a unified Arabian Peninsula, (as laid out in the 1996 neocon position paper "A Clean Break - A New Strategy For Securing The Realm) a prerequisite to laying a Saudi natural gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the European market.

Bear in mind both these projects - reshaping the Middle East and the military confrontation with Russia - have been neocon/neoliberal projects for a long time. No one who is heavily invested in them is going to give them up easily. There's too much at stake.

So of course a big lie is necessary to keep alive these diabolical plans.


That is a straw man allegation BWilliamson. The means by which Wikileaks acquires information is immaterial. The far right propaganda, that the establishment Democrat Party is promoting as fact, is that the Russian government (not an internal leaker) hacked DNC computers and 'Weaponized' WikiLeaks all with the specific intent of torpedoing the Clinton campaign and ensuring the election of Donald Trump.

Bask in contemporary post-factualism and borrow from the Bush administration's Iraq War propaganda if you like, BWilliamson. The struggle for social justice is not advanced through unsubstantiated allegations passed off as facts. These lies will only ensure that the Democrat Party acts more fervently to promote repression, espionage, and war.