[Background: in July, WikiLeaks published almost 20,000 pages of hacked emails that revealed top DNC officials deliberately worked to obstruct Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders’ campaign in order to boost Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming the party’s nominee. Someone sure as hell wants this nut and arch friend of the Rothschild/Soros crime syndicate to become America’s terminal President]
We present this nice article from Sputnik News, the entity set up by Russia to provide an alternative point of view to the disingenuous bile spewing from the Western propaganda machine known as the mainstream media.
As honest reporting and investigative journalism in the West appears to have been killed off and supplanted by a scary ghost of the MSM’s former self, Sputnik actually makes refreshing reading – not least because its articles are more intelligently written and more specific than its sorry Western counterparts, as you will see when you read on.
Probably one of the things that so upsets the Western elite about the arrival of the voice of Sputnik on the muddy swamp of disinformation is its perspicacious tendency to take apart what passes for “news” in our media. The case of the DNC email hack and the hurried blaming it all on Russia with attendant made-up “news” stories full of unnamed “expert sources”, assertions unsupported by any evidence and so on ad nauseam, is a case in point.
The assertion that “Russia did it” in order to help the Trump campaign is utterly risible. The only way a hack of Clinton’s emails could hurt her and help Trump is if the emails in question revealed illegal, dishonest and/or devious conduct. Which of course they did.
Hence the rush to create a distraction by blaming Russia and taking attention off the fact that the emails revealed things the Clinton campaign did not want anybody to know about. And all that on the not necessarily true assumption that nobody in their right mind would vote for a dishonest, devious, untrustworthy utter scumbag.
Meanwhile it has become quite entertaining speculating on what news lows the MSM will sink to in its efforts to hide the burgeoning cancer of corruption that is killing America. – Steve
Is This a Joke?’: US Media Not Getting Behind Clinton’s Russian Hacker Story
The failure of the US authorities to present any proof to back its claims of Russia’s involvement in hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has caused an uproar in the US media, while America’s top spy calls on the nation to stop blaming Russia.
Americans need to calm down and stop blaming Russia for hacking the Democratic National Committee, Director of the US National Intelligence James Clapper said on Thursday.
When asked if analysts in the media and elsewhere were getting ahead of the facts when it came to attributing the attack, Clapper said:
“Yes … We don’t know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been.”
Meanwhile the US-based website reporting on the US politics and current affairs was more vocally critical of the attempts to put the blame on Russia.
“A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections — on behalf of Donald Trump, no less?” reads article of Salon’s foreign affairs columnist Patrick Lawrence.
“Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters?” the author wonders.He is outraged that while putting the blame on Russia, Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, provided no names or otherwise proof apart from saying plainly that “experts” have “told him so.”
“I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick,” the author further says.
“In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook’s lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified “expert,” and more conditional verbs than you’ve had hot dinners — everything cast as “could,” “might,” “appears,” “would,” “seems,” “may.”
The author then urges to take the last few days’ events “as a signal of what Clinton’s policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November.”
“Turning her party’s latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade,” he suggests, adding that Donald Trump is blamed for his “mere willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins.”
“Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code,” he states, voicing his own position that there is no “Russian actor at the bottom of this swamp.”