No Russian 2020 Election Meddling Says US Intelligence Community Official
In January 2017, days before Trump’s inauguration, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) concluded with “high confidence (that) Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election (sic).”
Weeks before the US 2016 presidential election, a joint DNI/DHS statement said:
“The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations…intended to interfere with the US election process (sic).”
So-called “confiden(ce)” included no corroborating evidence because none existed then or now.
Claims by the US intelligence community that Vladimir Putin personally aimed to “denigrate” Hillary and aid Trump’s campaign were cooked up by Obama’s CIA director John Brennan.
Yet months of Russiagate witch hunt investigations by Robert Mueller, along with House and Senate Intelligence Committees, found no evidence of Russian election meddling — nothing proving what was then and remains a colossal hoax.
Promoted by establishment media endlessly got most Americans to believe, and still believe, one of the Big Lies of our time.
Russiagate was and remains one of the most shameful chapters in US political history.
Yet even after no corroborating evidence surfaced, establishment media to this day report the Big Lie they won’t let die.
Earlier intelligence community quotes were as follows:
A January 2017 assessment by the DNI, CIA, NSA and FBI:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election (sic).”
Mike Pompeo as CIA director in November 2017:
“The director stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment (sic).”
Trump’s national security advisor HR McMaster in February 2018:
“As you can see with the FBI indictment, the evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain (sic).”
DNI Dan Coats:
“In 2016, Russia conducted an unprecedented influence campaign to interfere in the US electoral and political process (sic).”
Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein:
“The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who commit election interference (sic).”
DHS secretary Kirstjen Nielsen:
“We have seen a willingness and a capability on the part of the Russians, and so we are working very closely with state and locals to ensure that we’re prepared this time around (sic).”
FBI director Christopher Wray:
“As I have said consistently, Russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in malign influence operations to this day (sic).”
Days earlier, accusations of Russia aiding Trump’s reelection campaign as well as Sanders’ aim to be Dem standard bearer in November surfaced — once again, no corroborating evidence presented to support them.
Yet top US intelligence community election security official Shelby Pierson told Fox News Sunday (Feb. 23) that despite reports otherwise, no evidence suggests Russia is involved in boosting Trump’s reelection bid.
In House Intelligence Committee testimony earlier this month, she reportedly said intelligence reports of Russian US election meddling are “overstated.”
Last week, the Wall Street Journal said she “has a reputation for being injudicious with her words and not appreciating the delicate work of corralling federal agencies, technology firms and state election officials to collaborate on election security.”
Was the above remark code language for truth-telling on claims of Russian US election meddling?
Clearly no evidence proves it earlier or now.
Other US intelligence community officials claimed Russia is waging “information warfare” ahead of November elections, no proof cited because none exists.
In January, Pierson reportedly said Moscow is “engaging in influence operations relative to candidates going into 2020,” adding:
“But we do not have evidence at this time that our adversaries are directly looking at interfering with vote counts or the vote tallies.”
Translation: We’re unable to prove that Russia or any other nation is interfering in the US political process.
Pierson added that the US intelligence community doesn’t know what Russia is planning — nor “China, Iran, non-state actors, hacktivists, and frankly for the DHS and FBI, even (whether) Americans might be looking to undermine confidence in the elections.”
How the latter could be possible she didn’t explain. The only opposition to the system option for ordinary US voters is by opting out, refusing to be part of a farcical process, clearly not serving their welfare.
In early February, FBI director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee that Russia is engaged in “information warfare” ahead of November elections through a “covert” social media campaign to divide the US public — citing no evidence proving the claim, once again because none exists.
Former CNN national security analyst Asha Ranqappa falsely claimed “Russia loves Bernie.”
She failed to explain that “Bernie” deplores Russia. In a CBS 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday, he was asked if he’d order military action if president.
“Absolutely,” he said. (W)e have the best military in the world,” sounding like Trump, adding:
He supports NATO and he’d order military action against foreign “threats against the American people” or “threats against our allies” — despite none existing since WW II ended, just invented ones to unjustifiably justify preemptive wars and other hostile actions against nations threatening no one.
Stop NATO’s Rick Rozoff noted that during a 2016 (Dem) primary debate on PBS, Sanders said:
“We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression (sic)” — ignoring that none exists.
He called for isolating Putin politically and economically. He commended Obama for sanctioning Russia after Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia, Putin going along with their request in 2014.
At the time, Sanders said “(t)he entire world has got to stand up to Putin,” falsely accusing him of “military adventurism” — a US, NATO, Israeli specialty, not how Russia operates.
Sanders once called model democrat Hugo Chavez “a dead communist dictator.” He demeaned democrat Putin as an “anti-democratic authoritarian.”
On all things geopolitical, he resembles earlier and current US hawks. He’d consider military force against Iran or North Korea to preempt a nuclear or missile test, he said.
He’s hostile to these countries, Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and other nations on the US target list for regime change — for their sovereign independence and opposition to Washington’s imperial agenda, not for any threat they pose.
If elected president in November, his geopolitical agenda will likely replicate how his predecessors operated.
His domestic agenda will likely fall short of his lofty campaign rhetoric.
No one accedes to high office in the US who isn’t vetted as safe, continuity assured no matter who serves as president, House speaker, congressional majority leaders, and other high-level posts.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”