by Sharon Rondeau
The 25-page “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) states on page 6 that “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”
Nevertheless, page 11 states that Russia carried out an “influence campaign targeting the US Presidential Election.”
“Annex A” of the report concentrates heavily on Russian media and its social media engagement and claims that the Russian government provided “material” to the open-government organization WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denied the claim in a press conference on Monday.
A footnote on page 6 of Annex A states that the section “was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”
The alleged Russian “influence campaign” was reportedly carried out at the order of President Vladimir Putin with the intent to “undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”
In his Monday press conference, Assange characterized the report as lacking in evidence and politically-motivated. He contended that emails released by WikiLeaks last year from operatives within the Democrat National Committee (DNC) and authored by former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta were “conflated” with any attempts made by a foreign government to play a part in the U.S. elections.
Prior to the publication of the report, mainstream media outlets frequently reportied that “Russia hacked the [U.S.] election,” despite DNI James Clapper’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that “They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.”
Newscasters continue to use the phrase apparently without analyzing its accuracy, while Putin has denounced the report as a “political witch hunt.”
In March 2013, Clapper told Rep. Ron Wyden that the U.S. intelligence apparatus did not “wittingly” collect Americans’ communications, as was proved false by Edward Snowden’s revelations three months later.
In its coverage, ABC News described Clapper’s statement to the congressional committee as a “flub.”
Page 15 of the report provides the historical backdrop of operatives from the former Soviet Union employing “intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.”
The report does not say, however, that on April 27, 2011, the White House posted a “computer-generated forgery” purported to be a scan of a certified copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate from Hawaii.
Also deemed to be fraudulent is a “short-form” Certification of Live Birth posted by an unknown source at The Daily KOS and Obama’s 2008 campaign website, FighttheSmears.com, falsely purported to be the only government birth record available from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) at the time.
In a scenario reminiscent of George Orwell’s “1984,” the U.S. media has participated in the ruse that Obama’s “documents” are “absolutely legitimate” without conducting its own investigations or reporting on the sole investigation which was done.
A 5+-year probe commissioned by then-five-term Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio found probable cause, early on, to believe that the long-form image and Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form are fraudulent.
The lead investigator of the five-year probe, Mike Zullo, declared nearly four years ago that the long-form birth certificate image was posted “with the intent to deceive.”
A final press conference on December 15 revealed that at least nine items on the Obama long-form image were lifted and replicated from an existing long-form birth certificate belonging to an individual born the same month and year and at the same hospital Obama claims.
Contrary to statements made by the media, the White House has offered no comment on the conclusions of forgery, including those presented by Zullo from two prominent forensics analysts.
Neither the FBI nor the CIA has investigated the matter to the public’s knowledge, and questions about Obama’s legitimacy have been dismissed despite credible reporting that he might not be eligible for the office he has held for eight years.
According to an attorney representing a government whistleblower, CIA Director John Brennan “ordered” surveillance of businessmen, including Donald Trump, individuals seen as political adversaries, and 156 judges without probable cause.
The dissemination of propaganda to their own people is a well-known tactic of communist governments.
While the intelligence report expounds on outlets such as “RT America” which it claims is “created and financed by the Russian Government and part of Russian Government-sponsored RT TV,” the Obama regime leaks classified reports to The Washington Post and NBC News by unnamed “officials” with the apparent intent to convince the public that the Russians “were trying to elect Trump.”
Although the report emphasizes that “RT Editor in Chief Margarita Simonyan has close ties to top Russian Government officials,” executives at ABC News and CBS News had close relatives working within Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), which had issued rapid-fire advice in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2012 attack which killed four Americans at a CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya.
On September 16 of that year, Obama’s then-United Nations ambassador, Susan Rice, lied on five Sunday television programs about its cause, claiming it to be Islamic anger over an obscure internet video. It was not until several weeks later, when unnamed members of the US intelligence community contradicted Rice’s claims, that the Obama regime was forced to admit that a terrorist attack led by Islamic militants had been carried out amid scant security.
The birth certificate image “is the foundational lie of this presidency,” Zullo has repeatedly said.
Over the last eight years, the U.S. mainstream media has shown a willingness to present false information to their audiences, particularly in the case of the fraudulent identity documents of Barack Hussein Obama.
In fact, the media’s lack of curiosity about Obama’s background in 2007 and 2008 might have been the most significant “influence campaign” in American history.