While CNN tries to manufacture new stories, the Russia evidence is looking more phony than ever.
While headlines are discussing the possibility that the government spied on the Trump transition team, they keep mentioning the Russia evidence of collusion against Hillary Clinton. The reason for this is that the possibility of collusion with Russia was the justification for the spying. And that possibility was raised because of the alleged Russia evidence that pointed to their involvement in hacking the DNC and John Podesta’s emails. Thus, the Washington Free Beacon:
Democrats on the House intelligence oversight panel have argued the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign, although no evidence has surfaced of any ties between the two.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), ranking member of the intelligence committee, stated during a hearing Monday that several Trump aides colluded with the Russians during the campaign. His statement was based on a dossier by a former British intelligence officer that has been widely discredited as inaccurate.
CNN recently tried to claim there was new evidence of collusion, but the story was extraordinarily flimsy, as Howard Kurtz explained on Fox News:
But beyond collusion, what if the original claim about Russia evidence in the case of the hack of the DNC emails was not even true? All of these allegations about Trump are based on the argument that the Russian government got actively involved in our election.
Recently, Justin Raimondo pointed out that the Russia evidence is virtually non-existent. He wrote of Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder of CrowdStrike which was hired by the DNC to identify who hacked them. He argued that the same hacker targeted Ukrainian forces.
Alperovitch told the PBS News Hour that “Ukraine’s artillery men were targeted by the same hackers, that we call Fancy Bear, that targeted DNC, but this time they were targeting cell phones to try to understand their location so that the Russian artillery forces can actually target them in the open battle. It was the same variant of the same malicious code that we had seen at the DNC.”
The only problem with this analysis is that is isn’t true. It turns out that Crowdstrike’s estimate of Ukrainian losses was based on a blog post by a pro-Russian blogger eager to tout Ukrainian losses: the Ukrainians denied it. Furthermore, the hacking attribution was based on the hackers’ use of a malware program called X-Agent, supposedly unique to Fancy Bear. Since the target was the Ukrainian military, Crowdstrike extrapolated from this that the hackers were working for the Russians.
All somewhat plausible, except for two things: To begin with, as Jeffrey Carr pointed out in December, and now others are beginning to realize, X-Agent isn’t unique to Fancy Bear.
There is much more to Raimondo’s argument, including Alperovitch’s connections to the Russophobic U.S. deep state. He is not credible as a neutral investigator.
The allegation that Russia interfered in our election looks like fake news. I wonder if Trump was spied on because he threatened the deep state’s Russia policy or if the Russia evidence was cooked up as a pretext to spy on Trump.