hack
[/hak/]
Verb: use a computer to gain unauthorized access to data in a system; to gain access to a computer illegally
Everyone already knows for a fact that no unauthorized access was gained to any voting machines and no votes were illegally altered or changed by Russia, China or anyone else. So, by the very definition of the word "hack," our election was factually Not Hacked.
So why does the media continue to fuel the hysteria with a constant allusion to Russians "hacking" our election?
Because the Russians did in fact "hack" the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman. According to ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Russians were responsible for the hacking the email server and they forwarded the contents to WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks then released nearly 20,000 damaging emails that suggested that the DNC was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. What an embarrassment to Hillary Clinton and the DNC. At least it should have been. But the DNC, the masters of deception and distraction that they are, twisted the story from hacking the DNC to hacking the election.
But where is the evidence that Russia hacked our election? Well, that's being "investigated." And investigated and investigated. As the investigations dragged unsuccessfully on and on the media began to invent its own sensational headlines and stories.
Steven Colbert's monologues portrayed Trump as "inviting" the Russians to hack our elections. Newsweek published "How Trump Invited Putin to Hack the Election." Their logic comes from Trump's remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails [of Hillary Clinton] that are missing."
Clearly it was a reference to the FBI's investigation into the thousands of emails that were wiped clean from Hillary Clinton's secret email server. But many uninformed people were conned into believing Trump actually suggested the election hacking even though he never mentioned "hacking" or "elections?"
An outlandish story comes from the Washington Post. They have printed that the "proof" of Russian interference is in a secret envelope delivered in early August 2016 by CIA courier to the White House for the eyes of President Barack Obama and three senior aides only. But the contents of the envelope are still "secret." Believe that one and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you!
Other explanations of proof that Russia hacked the election are "that's what Russia does" and Russia believed "they could control Trump by blackmailing him with Russian business transactions." Sorry, that dear media is an opinion, not "proof."
How did Russia help Trump? Even if any one of these accounts were true, or all of them, what did Russia actually accomplish that influenced, interfered, changed or altered our election? The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), apparently frustrated and humiliated with trying to build a case, all concluded that "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."
Really? Denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race in a thunderstorm of scandal, from Whitewater to Benghazi to foreign contributions to the Clinton family foundation to her use of a private email server to her escape from the Uranium One¹ scandal. Donald Trump Jr. surely didn't have to travel all the way to Russia to "find dirt" on Hillary Clinton. There's plenty right here in the U.S.A.
The FBI, CIA and NSA underestimated the power of a well-informed faction of Americans who believe in America, who want jobs, who are anxious for the economic climate to stabilize, who took the loss of three Americans in Benghazi seriously, who feel ISIS is a real threat and who have watched as their freedoms trickle away to tax laws disguised as healthcare and censorship that hides behind political correctness.
Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech to pomote the Uranium One deal to the Russians and the Clinton Foundation got $235 million in the deal and Donald Trump is suspect of collusion! Really? The Clinton Foundation claims they provide 80% of their charity work to personal charities like donating to Haiti. Well isn't that convenient? They donate millions in drugs to Haiti, a land where 89% of the population buys their drugs from street vendors. There isn't even a half dozen "pharmacies" in the entire country. Believe the Clinton's if you want but a little common sense would go a long, long way proving otherwise.
Fixing Haiti's elections is another fact Liberals chose to ignore. But, in my opinion, Hillary's private server was used for Foundation business. That "classified document" hysteria was nothing but a smoke screen to cover up the real issue of incriminating foundation communications that were on that server. Perhaps investigators would not have had to seek out Canadian records to uncover the truths about the millions in foundation donations that occurred during the Uranium One¹ deal if they had known then about the Clinton's private server.
[1] Clintons and Uranium One
|
Here is what a few of the media had to say:
CNN 6/15/2017: "According to the recent Bloomberg report, Russian hackers tried -- but failed -- to alter data from the US election in 39 states." BBC 6/21/17: "Russian hackers targeted election systems in 21 US states during last year's campaign... there was no evidence to suggest actual vote ballots were altered in the election hack." Washington Post 6/6/2017 "While the attacks seem more exploratory than operational — and there’s no evidence that they had any actual effect — they further illustrate the real threats...." The Guardian 6/5/2017 "vote-counting was thought to have been unaffected, despite concerted Russian efforts to penetrate it." Fox News 5/30/2017 "Republican and Democrat officials, including President Obama, have universally agreed on this [that the Russians somehow hacked state voting machines] never happened." |
So why does the media continue to fuel the hysteria with a constant allusion to Russians "hacking" our election?
Because the Russians did in fact "hack" the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the personal Google email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman. According to ODNI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Russians were responsible for the hacking the email server and they forwarded the contents to WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks then released nearly 20,000 damaging emails that suggested that the DNC was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. What an embarrassment to Hillary Clinton and the DNC. At least it should have been. But the DNC, the masters of deception and distraction that they are, twisted the story from hacking the DNC to hacking the election.
But where is the evidence that Russia hacked our election? Well, that's being "investigated." And investigated and investigated. As the investigations dragged unsuccessfully on and on the media began to invent its own sensational headlines and stories.
Steven Colbert's monologues portrayed Trump as "inviting" the Russians to hack our elections. Newsweek published "How Trump Invited Putin to Hack the Election." Their logic comes from Trump's remark “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails [of Hillary Clinton] that are missing."
Clearly it was a reference to the FBI's investigation into the thousands of emails that were wiped clean from Hillary Clinton's secret email server. But many uninformed people were conned into believing Trump actually suggested the election hacking even though he never mentioned "hacking" or "elections?"
An outlandish story comes from the Washington Post. They have printed that the "proof" of Russian interference is in a secret envelope delivered in early August 2016 by CIA courier to the White House for the eyes of President Barack Obama and three senior aides only. But the contents of the envelope are still "secret." Believe that one and I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you!
Other explanations of proof that Russia hacked the election are "that's what Russia does" and Russia believed "they could control Trump by blackmailing him with Russian business transactions." Sorry, that dear media is an opinion, not "proof."
How did Russia help Trump? Even if any one of these accounts were true, or all of them, what did Russia actually accomplish that influenced, interfered, changed or altered our election? The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), apparently frustrated and humiliated with trying to build a case, all concluded that "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."
Really? Denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. Hillary Clinton entered the presidential race in a thunderstorm of scandal, from Whitewater to Benghazi to foreign contributions to the Clinton family foundation to her use of a private email server to her escape from the Uranium One¹ scandal. Donald Trump Jr. surely didn't have to travel all the way to Russia to "find dirt" on Hillary Clinton. There's plenty right here in the U.S.A.
The FBI, CIA and NSA underestimated the power of a well-informed faction of Americans who believe in America, who want jobs, who are anxious for the economic climate to stabilize, who took the loss of three Americans in Benghazi seriously, who feel ISIS is a real threat and who have watched as their freedoms trickle away to tax laws disguised as healthcare and censorship that hides behind political correctness.
Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech to pomote the Uranium One deal to the Russians and the Clinton Foundation got $235 million in the deal and Donald Trump is suspect of collusion! Really? The Clinton Foundation claims they provide 80% of their charity work to personal charities like donating to Haiti. Well isn't that convenient? They donate millions in drugs to Haiti, a land where 89% of the population buys their drugs from street vendors. There isn't even a half dozen "pharmacies" in the entire country. Believe the Clinton's if you want but a little common sense would go a long, long way proving otherwise.
Fixing Haiti's elections is another fact Liberals chose to ignore. But, in my opinion, Hillary's private server was used for Foundation business. That "classified document" hysteria was nothing but a smoke screen to cover up the real issue of incriminating foundation communications that were on that server. Perhaps investigators would not have had to seek out Canadian records to uncover the truths about the millions in foundation donations that occurred during the Uranium One¹ deal if they had known then about the Clinton's private server.
[1] Clintons and Uranium One
Comments
Post a Comment