NSA Hacked the Election, Not the Russians!

On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we examine the unsubstantiated claim by President Obama, Democrats, and Republicans that the 2016 presidential election was fixed by Vladimir Putin and the Russians. The Washington Post and The New York Times are leading the charge to delegitimize the election and unseat Donald Trump. Absent from the debate is the fact the CIA has specialized in meddling in foreign elections and has orchestrated coups and assassinations of political leaders for decades. The NSA, the national security state, and its partners have at their disposal the technology to influence elections, not by changing votes but by using psychological operations and propaganda. The NSA and the CIA are at the forefront of that effort.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

 **Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

 Show Notes

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

Here’s The Evidence Russia Hacked The Democratic National Committee

Lindsey Graham, Democrats plan probes of Russia hacking

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack

Democrats Want Panel to Probe Election-Related Hacks 

White House says Vladimir Putin had direct role in hacking US election

Democrats See Russia as Election Culprit, Others Don’t

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Robert Barth says:

    Although there is ample circumstantial evidence to suspect the NSA could hack, and then leak, any email account there is still (to my knowledge) no direct correlation to third-party, verified, evidence that reveals the true identity of the entity (or entities) that hacked the DNC and/or any official US election system. Care should be taken before any concrete conclusions are drawn. Newsbud’s credibility depends on it. As with 9/11, the truth will probably reveal itself in stages, over a long period of time.

  2. Robert, I had precisely the same reaction. This is a good video, but I have to admit I’m uncomfortable with a trend I’ve been noticing with these reports where Kurt’s making relatively conclusive statements; in this case that the “NSA Hacked the Election, Not the Russians”, instead of presenting arguments that make a case for as the grounds for speculation. I see good arguments here to support the potential thesis for allegations of the NSA’s involvement in the disclosure of the Clinton/DNC emails (which seems to be the only remotely tangible piece of “evidence” that those trying to push the theory that the Russians “hacked” the election have presented). However, due to the secretive nature of who had access to this information; certainly the NSA, but potentially any number of players who stood to benefit from its disclosure and probably could’ve accessed it through various means (it’s not like Hillary Clinton has a spectacular record when it comes to safeguarding sensitive data;), I think the best we can really do is speculate and my concern is that not being careful enough about making a clear distinction between research, evidence of conspiracy, speculation, and conclusions holds the potential to undermine the credibility of Nimmo’s otherwise stellar reporting.

  3. Mark Ribbit says:

    I can see where you two are coming from (Robert and Benny) and what your concerns are about maintaining Newsbud’s journalistic integrity.

    There is another side to the coin however.
    Add up all the MSM articles, reports, TV, radio coverage stating matter-of-factly that the Russians hacked the elections
    and tell me what the tally is? What proof did they present for this assertion?

    Then tell me what the tally is for other news media stating that the NSA hacked the elections?

    One can view this article by Kurt as a type of mockery of the MSM with respect to their Russian accusations,
    rather than a hard evidence-based piece.

    • Mark,
      That mockery, to use your phrase, is fine but I think the distinction needs to be more clear if that’s what’s intended. We can all pretty much agree that blaming Russia for “hacking” the presidential election is about as ridiculous as it is laughable. However, the underlying mechanics of more probable entities responsible for this “hacking” and the implications might be as to who was involved and what they ultimately wished to achieve is a much more difficult case to make. Kurt’s done a good job exploring those issues, but I think he needs to exercise a finer level of caution when presenting any sort of conclusive thesis. Newsbud has to hold itself to a much higher standard than most other media entities, because it’s going against the grain and even if the MSM has no journalistic integrity to wager they still have the upper hand when it comes to having a field day on anything remotely questionable. Better to take two steps and leave it than take three and have to walk one back…

  4. Robert Barth says:

    What makes Newsbud’s reporting uniquely credible and extremely valuable is Newsbud’s relentless refusal to join the MSM’s hysterical parroting of the “powers-that-shouldn’t-be’s” current party line, whatever that is at any given moment. Kurt’s piece amply demonstrates the ridiculousness of the MSM’s obvious propaganda and the larger psy-op that fuels it. I agree with Benny’s point that the discovery and exposure of who (or what) actually “hacked” anything would be the far more fascinating and useful undertaking. I can’t agree with the idea of interpreting Kurt’s piece as an exercise in mockery as that would reduce his thorough, well constructed work to cynical passive-aggression which, I firmly believe, was never his intention. As I can understand it, Kurt’s work stands on its own. Conclusions, at this point in the inquiry, need not have been drawn, as they add no further impact than the information already presented.

  5. Montague Thielen says:

    A couple of observations. Firstly, Assange is adamant that the emails did not come from any “State”. That clears the Russian government of involvement. Secondly, listening to interviews with Mr. William Binney, who is apparently the architect of the NSA’s surveillance system, gives credence to Kurt’s conclusions. He is worth a listen.
    Just my own thought here. If I were a member of the US intelligence network, especially someone in the field working for the CIA or any other branch, I would be terrified at the thought of HRC in the office of the President. What with the way she handled classified information as the secretary of state. Not difficult at all for me to believe that someone in the NSA or indeed any branch of the US intelligence community would be more than willing to contribute to derailing her campaign.

    • candideschmyles says:

      I so agree with that conclusion. The reopening of the FBI investigation in the weeks before the election was far more damaging to HRC than Wikileaks publication of Podesta emails as it had the psychological effect of legitimising the principle that HRC was crooked through and through. There is no doubt in my mind that the security establishment would view HRC as too dangerous to their status quo to countenance such a scenario. The security establishment like puppets in the oval office and Clinton is no puppet. I still believe Trump is.

      • Yeah, to me the reopening the FBI investigation was the real manipulation of the election (at least in the context where this “hacking” BS is concerned). My feeling is that Hillary was all but guaranteed the presidency and that the whole thing with Trump was a matter of propping up someone who was so appalling, frightening, and offensive to various groups that, even if they despised Clinton, the fear of a Trump presidency would be enough to motivate enough people to ensure a plausible enough margin of victory that the powers that shouldn’t be could tweak the results even if she didn’t win. Sure, the Russians favored Trump over Clinton for quite rational reasons: Clinton inc has been pushing the anti-Russia rhetoric hard while Trump at least made overtures that he wanted cooperative relationships with other countries. I’m not convinced one way or the other what that’s going to look like, but I can see how Russians would be more inclined to wait to see what’s behind door number two when door number one is a threatening, finger waving, neoliberal chicken hawk, with a chance to win a trip to a fallout bunker.

        I agree 100% with Kurt’s analysis of this Russian “hacking” propaganda, to use my words not his, is a hypocritical, steaming pile of grizzly (four letter word that isn’t “step”), but I’m not convinced, as some seem to be implying that Hillary was ousted (or ditched in favor of) Trump out of concerns of her deviating from the standard presidential agenda. She’s a puppet that’s been walking the walk for long enough that the powers that shouldn’t be probably can just wind her up and let her go in the direction she’s been pointed in. Apparently either that “direction” has changed or there are simply too many layers of liability (perhaps even her health, which I haven’t seen discussed much), that even though Trump is frighteningly unpredictable and impulsive, he’s a safer bet than Clinton.

        My main point is that I believe Trump was never intended to be elected, but something changed, either with Hillary or in ways which the powers that shouldn’t be realized that Trump might be more useful for a different set of priorities. One of my big concerns is that this might be related to advancing the police state domestically, as part of the “law and order” piece of his platform. Scary…

  6. Tomcat108 says:

    I agree that the remark that the NSA “hacked” the election was partly a flippant, satirical statement, and also its what they do, the NSA, CIA, etc , always try to influence elections, in dirty, underhanded ways, so of course they did. We should allow for insight, intuitive awareness, etc too, not always waiting for massive amounts of physical evidence. Sibel etc are excellent at that deep insight and awareness. I dont believe it matters much who hacked into the DNC, Clinton emails. The emails showed what they showed and we know whats going on. Im sure thats what Kurt means.

  7. Tomcat108 says:

    Also, to say HRC is no puppet is just assanine. Shes as puppet as they come, thats obvious. Shes far more of a puppet than Trump. Nonetheless, They ll do their best to make Trump a puppet and control him as much as they can.

  8. Tomcat108 says:

    I dont think the empire cares that much anymore which empire party nominee is president, they ll control them anyway. Thats whats been going on ever since they assassinated the Kennedys. Thats when they took over the Demecratic party. Of coures they prefer one whos already a puppet but will go with the other candidate if they think it will be better for them.

    • Tomcat108,
      I agree with your conclusions about the state of empire, the presidency, Hillary Clinton’s VIP puppet status, and the fact that Trump will essentially play the role regardless of any of his rhetoric. The part that still just bewilders me a bit is how the powers that shouldn’t be have been willing to put their support behind a candidate who, at times, has spoken out rather explicitly against core bipartisan supported (quietly or enthusiastically) policies like NAFTA. I believe it was after Trump stated that he intended to do away with NAFTA and renegotiate a better deal at the RNC speech where some Republicans walked out in protest. (Nevermind any other inflammatory and offensive remarks throughout his campaign… this was the last straw 😉

      More importantly, as I think I’ve stated elsewhere here, Trump seems to be so impulsive and unpredictable that I just can’t understand how the PTsB would feel like he can been adequately controlled and prevented from going off script. I guess, similar to what you suggested, the veneer of legitimacy that’s been deemed necessary to keep people in line and in check doesn’t even seem necessary in the midst of so many layers of post-reality obfuscation at this point. I’m stubbornly holding out hope that this level of audacity will expose enough cracks for us to making a greater impact in chipping away some of the facade.

      • Mark Ribbit says:

        I’m with you basically Benny and Tomcat.

        Here’s my take on how Trump could have been ‘allowed’ to be elected by the deep state.
        Quite simple really.

        Their power/control over elections and such is not as black and white/simple as some would have us believe.
        There actually are some things going on in this world that they don’t have direct/immediate/complete control over.

        Now of course, Trump could end up being mostly ‘all show’ and not pose a threat to the establishment in the end.
        However should he try to shake things up in a direction counter to the likings of the deep state, he better keep a close watch behind his back at all times.

Speak Your Mind