Posted on 01/08/2017 4:02:03 AM PST by markomalley
Nearly half of the highly-anticipated US Intelligence Community’s report is dedicated to Sputnik and RT, which are accused of influencing the US public during the 2016 presidential race. Radio Sputnik talked to political commentator and the host of the daily radio newscast "CPR news" Don DeBar.
“The interesting thing about this report is that it is only conclusions, not evidence or even a statement of a case. The very beginning of the report says ‘sorry, we can’t show you any of the evidence.’ The case that they make, the conclusions they arrive at are that Sputnik and RT provide platforms for voices other than that coming out of the mainstream media, that they view the mainstream media’s treatment of Trump as biased, that they published materials that created unfavorable feelings towards Clinton, such as the WikiLeaks releases,” Don DeBar said.
“What Sputnik and the RT are really accused of is doing journalism, muckraking, taking materials for the public to make up their own minds about.”
When asked why it seems that nobody cared about the actual content of the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta, which contain self-confessions of criminal activity, about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) suppressing Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and many other things besides, Don DeBar said that nobody actually denied that these things had happened.
“That is not part of the discussion. The main argument here is that the source of this [information] was a foreign government and that the purpose was to influence the US election. We call this whistleblowing in the US. We know how the Obama administration treats that, prosecuting more people on the Espionage Act than all of the prior presidents of the past 100 years,” DeBar noted.
“But those of us who were raised here with the belief that a free press is essential to the functioning of a democracy look favorably as hell on it when someone says something we didn’t know about people running for office,” he added.
Some of the Podesta emails shed light on Hillary Clinton’s improper use of the charitable foundation, her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs where she was less critical of Wall Street banks than she had been on the campaign trail.
Other emails showed Clinton criticizing environmental activists and supporting hydraulic fracturing, which is a method of gas mining fraught with danger to the environment.
The Democrats described the hacks as an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign and boost support for Donald Trump.
Don DeBar also said that the password John Podesta used — “p@ssw0rd” — was so simple that “even some kid in his mummy’s basement” could crack it.
“It’s a real possibility that they (the DNC) had absolutely no security, so I think that [all the talk about the alleged Russian meddling in the US election] is just a distraction from the fact that these are authentic emails that show criminal activity by the campaign of a presidential candidate, by the Democratic National Committee, by a whole host of players that are either government officials or would-be government officials, and that the press is no part of this criminal activity at all,” Don DeBar said.
The declassified report released by US intelligence community on Friday accuses the Russian media of influencing the American public during the 2016 presidential race.
However, it appears that material that was thought to provide evidence was compiled in December 2012, right after the reelection of Barack Obama.
Notably, the report focuses on television shows and interviews that took place four years before Trump was elected, and well before he was even a politician.
WikiLeaks derided the report in a tweet by saying that the document, "had the curious disclaimer that it was based on watching TV and reading Tweets."
Seems like these ‘respected’ intel agencies have fallen prey to Democrat bullshit for so long, they’ve decided to take up manufacturing a little bit of it themselves.
I wonder how long they’d be in the “journalism” business if they were to report about crimes, corruption, and malfeasance by Putin. Hmmm. Probably not very long.
Kill the snakes and alligators while draining the swamp
Where there’s smoke, there’s mirrors.
Does that offend you?
Should we accept lies because they come from 'our' people - AND reject truth because it comes from 'the other'? Gimme a break. Our people are lying to us and they should be judged accordingly.
If the only people telling the truth about corruption in the United States are 'the Russians' - then more power to them. Maybe we should ask them for the truth about Benghazi... and Hillary's support of ISIS, the kickbacks from African countries and our insane involvement in the 'Arab Spring' fiascos.
Maybe true in Russia but not here.
For example, this book was an excellent expose of Clinton bribery.
CLINTON CASH
https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483881385&sr=8-1&keywords=Clinton+Cash
Brietbart ran many stories on this subject. As did, The New York Times, and USA Today. These are all American sources. Crying that no one tells us the truth while it's so easy to find is a little bit weird. Try the internet. Try google or yahoo search.
If anything, Russian reporting on this subject was piggybacking on exposés developed by US reporters. And, you probably heard, Hillary was not elected. In part, I'd say it was because of these exposures of her corrupt nature. I'm also under the impression that FOX NEWS and many conservative commentators in the USA do an excellent job of exposing the crimes and hypocrisy of Leftists, including the Clintons. There are also great websites, like FreeRepublic that share the truth about people like the Clintons. In fact, this website, like Drudge Report, has long been exposing and sharing information on the Clintons.
I don't know if you saw Dinesh D'Souza's excellent movie (Hillary's America) on Hillary, but I would like to let you know that he's an American, albeit from India, an immigrant. You didn't have to go to a Russian source to find out what he had to say. You could just stream it from Amazon, which is a good thing.
All I'm saying about the state-owned and Putin-controlled Sputnik is that it is not free to pursue stories in Russia with the same vigor it is to pursue them in the USA. Do you know of a single story it has broken about the USA or about Putin's Russia? A scoop? I doubt it. It's not in the exposé business when it comes to Russia.
Is it just my faulty memory or was there really once such a thing as Radio Free Europe and Voice of America? From the recesses of my mind I seem to recall those instruments of propaganda.
“However, it appears that material that was thought to provide evidence was compiled in December 2012, right after the reelection of Barack Obama.”
Is this saying that in December of 2012 the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc started compiling TV footage suggesting that Russia was trying to inform the US public?
What is the claim being made anyway - “influencing a US election”? Are they actually claiming that Russia hacked Podesta and Clinton’s emails and gave them to somebody else to give to Wikileaks - accounts that had such poor security that almost anybody could have hacked them without Russian help?
If so, were the intel agencies starting to compile “evidence” that the Russians had access to Clinton, Podesta, and DNC emails way back in Dec of 2012? That’s very shortly after Benghazi, when everybody wanted to know what the heck both Hillary and Obama were doing during that whole terrorist attack, before, and after. At that point the intel agencies were worried about the Russians informing the US public? What were the intel agencies afraid the Russians knew?
It's NOT that we can't find the truth... it's out there. It's that disinformation and lies are used to degrade the truth. Those in authority have upped the process - now labeling things they don't like as 'fake news'. Dinesh D'Souza's piece was trashed by the MSM and never mentioned without the caveat's that he'd been arrested... You know that. The same with many of your other examples.
In this case hacking by Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans etc has been going on for years. Our actions against them have also been going on for years. Our 'intelligence services' do more than have bake sales to raise money for the defense department. At least I hope that's the case...
On the darker side there's proof our side (once thought of as 'the good guys') have interfered in elections - sometimes in sloppy ways that's caused many deaths. Look what Hillary did in the ME - and the disasters that resulted. Or Obama's desire to undermine Netanyahu because he didn't like him. Maybe some of these 'choices' should to bathed in sunlight - maybe American Presidents are doing things citizens would NOT approve of - because they can do it in the dark. Maybe Putin's doing the same in Russia. Maybe that's one of the big problems we have in the world - too many 'leaders' are getting away with stuff their citizens would never approve of...
Important facts get left out or downplayed because the real agenda here is to damage Trump.
Here's what should have been said by the people we're suppose to trust: "We have known about hacks from other countries for years. We read the emails from Wikileaks and they appear to be accurate. For reasons that are bizarre to even us we did NOT protect the country from any form of hacking. In short we didn't lock the door at night to keep burglars out... hell, we didn't even buy a lock... or a door. But now, for political reasons we're going to find a way to make it appear that Trump wanted to be robbed. That is not the case but our job is to lie FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. Not just lie but also to condemn the American public for calling us on lies.
There's reasons citizens are no longer trusting those in authority is because they're NOT trustworthy ... and the solution is NOT to bully them into believing stuff that's patently not true.
Remember the ad for Radio Free Europe with the DJ doing the intro for “On Broadvay......”?
The “Russians did it” meme is being pushed for several reasons but the main reason is so the media can avoid discussing the content of the emails.
And on the intel report that Russian media influenced our election, I guess our media should stop reporting on foreign elections because they would be guilty of influencing foreign elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.