Since the debate about Russia hacking and influencing the US Presidential elections to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton has reached deeper levels of crazy with the US intelligence community’s release of a damning report, allow me to share a crazy story of my own.
Let’s say authorities have accused your hypothetical child of stealing underwear from a department store.
The authorities then proceed by telling you their opinion.
“We think your child is stealing panties from Sears.”
You know your child is not a Goody Two-Shoes, but you also don’t see enough evidence to believe theft was involved.
Therefore, you ask for proof.
Instead of presenting proof, the authorities and the store manager presume you’re either too intellectually lazy or stubborn to absorb “facts.”
Therefore, they speak louder and slower …
“WE–THINK–YOUR–CHILD–STOLE–PANTIES–FROM–SEARS.”
But no proof is in the blend.
The accusation is a serious one with large implications.
Which is why you continue to ask for evidence.
The authorities still don’t present proof — they pull together friends from the media to make an announcement …
“WE–THINK–YOUR–CHILD–STOLE–PANTIES–FROM–SEARS.”
With nary proof in sight.
Soon, the authorities announce that they’ve completed a report that proves your child is a drawers snatcher.
Guess what the report says?
“WE–THINK–YOUR–CHILD–STOLE–PANTIES–FROM–SEARS.”
No proof though.
And that’s the problem with the US intelligence community’s latest findings about Russia’s hacking activities.
Sure, Russia is highly capable of hacking the Democratic National Committee’s servers.
I also believe that Russia is capable of hacking parts of the US government.
But you can’t make the “Russia hacked the election” story a fact just by repeating the same accusation every day.
Using a report to moan about how Moscow-based RT has a smart digital strategy with a larger social media reach than its Western news counterparts does not constitute proof.
Nor does presenting facts about RT’s deeds that were compiled during President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign — four years prior to Trump’s election.
And yes, there are serious implications connected with a confirmed Russia cyber attack. In March 2016, NATO reminded the public that it considers hacking against a NATO member nation an act of war worthy of a conventional weapons response.
I don’t know about you, but I still have memories of America going to war with Iraq over WMD intelligence tales that weren’t true.
Plus the same group of spies who have a history of running drugs, guns and prostitutes worldwide — in addition to owning a long history of assassinations, spying on allies and executing regime change operations — expects the public to believe an accusation that has no supporting evidence.
So … damn right … give me proof of Russia’s involvement …
song currently stuck in my head: “between us 2” – josef leimberg
mentalunrest.com 