While the Democratic Party is intent on making the world believe that the recent 2016 U.S. presidential election was lost due to Russian interference through hacked emails of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, top U.S. intelligence vets from the NSA and the CIA have said that this is far from the case and that there is no legitimate basis for these claims.
Furthermore, it has been revealed that John Podesta is not beyond taking liberties with the truth and making spurious claims. Emails published by WikiLeaks attest to the fact that as far back as 2015, he was already suggesting the Democratic Party should make an example of leakers.
"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it."
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray has already stated that a Washington insider is behind the recent Clinton and DNC email leaks, as the Inquisitr previously reported, and that Russia is not responsible for the hacking of data. There is a great difference between hacks and leaks after all.
It would have been quite easy for a Washington insider to have gotten hold of private emails and leaked information, especially after John Podesta is known to have lost his phone while getting in or out of a cab as another email attests to. On July 19, 2015, an email shows that Podesta admits to his phone dropping off of his belt and requests help by asking an associate to phone the cab company he had used to see if his lost phone had been found.
This whole #Wikileaks thing could have been avoided if Podesta kept a better grip on his phone with a decent password. #PodestaEmails15 pic.twitter.com/x50tdrg43U
— Hutch (@LawlessPirate) October 22, 2016
Since Podesta has admitted to "making an example" of anyone in order to achieve results and has even lost his phone on the one occasion that we know of, shouldn't we listen to Craig Murray?
While the New York Times has said this week that there is "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" showing the CIA that President Putin had swiftly dispatched hackers to make sure that Donald Trump was elected president, the paper didn't actually provide us with any cold, hard evidence, Consortium News reported.
In the 1960s, when Nixon and Johnson were convinced that Russia was meddling in American politics, the CIA assuaged their fears and patiently said that they were wrong. Now, however, the CIA is telling us that Russia is so intent on influencing the American political process that they have been employing hackers to do their dirty work for them. That would work great in a James Bond movie, but it is probably not the stuff of real life after all. But what do top U.S. intelligence vets think?
U.S. intelligence vets are questioning the "circumstantial evidence" claim by the CIA. Why is this? Because thanks to technology, you can actually acquire hard evidence if you really want to prove facts. And if Russians were really hacking their way into America's political system, this could certainly be proven with the technology available today.
For instance, as Consortium News describes, the NSA is able to pinpoint both the sender and the receiver when a hack has occurred. The NSA has "unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S." What this means is that all data flowing from the servers of either Hillary Clinton or the DNC has been "collected" by the NSA. You can see the destination addresses in the packets of these data transfers. The NSA would have a record of where email packets traveled to once they left the U.S.
"The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any "hacked" emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network."
All of this shows that if Russians had hacked their way into the emails of Hillary Clinton or the DNC, the NSA would certainly know. They would also be able to provide evidence of the hack. And as no evidence is forthcoming, we can reasonably conclude that no hacking has been committed by Russia and that a Washington insider is possibly the culprit responsible for leaked Democratic Party emails.
[Featured Image by Drew Angerer/Getty Images]