Hillary Clinton’s Emails: All Signs Point to Leaking, Not Hacking

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, CIA Director John Brennan, political figures in both parties, as well as the mainstream U.S. media have still not tired of blaming Hillary Clinton’s loss of the presidential election on “hacking” by Russian intelligence and President Putin. Brennan claimed that “there is a strong consensus [among intel chiefs] on the scope, nature and intent of Russian interference in our presidential elections.”

However, the Director of the National Intelligence James Clapper said there was no conclusive evidence of Russia’s involvement to help Donald Trump, while Mike Rogers, the director of the NSA, believes the emails released did not affect the election results, while the Director of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, found no evidence of any hacking of the elections themselves.

Lyndon LaRouche commented that “the whole thing is a foolish fraud, coming from the politically-deceased Obama.” There is no evidence to back up the charges being made against Vladimir Putin, he continued, “anonymous sources” are not proof.

A very solid refutation of the CIA’s allegations came from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a group of former high-level intelligence officers, in a memorandum released Dec. 13. For these experts, all with senior-level experience in cyber-intelligence and security, it is “child’s play to dismiss” the claims. “The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here is the difference between leaking and hacking:

“Leak : When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
“Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls, or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts date.
“All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it — and know both the sender and the recipient.”

The NSA’s “extensive domestic data-collection network” is such that it would collect any data from the servers of the DNC or of Hillary Clinton. The authors then give the technical explanations of how and why records are available of all such data transfers, internationally.

They point out that the statements of the anonymous intelligence agency spokesmen are “equivocating” — they say things like “our best guess” or “our opinion,” etc., which shows they are cannot trace the emails across the network, otherwise they could provide the evidence “without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider…”

The memo is signed by members of the VIPS Steering Group, William Binney, Mike Gravel, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Elizabeth Murray, and Kirk Wiebe.

One of them, Mike Gravel, a former U.S. Senator from Alaska, gave an interview to LaRouchePAC on Dec. 15, in which he elaborated on the theme, dismissing the claims offhand as “ridiculous” and “far-fetched”. As for Barack Obama’s threat to retaliate against Russia, Gravel noted that the United States government unquestionably “does more activity in the cyber world than anybody else.” Russia might be a distant second, “but there’s nobody that holds a candle to what we are capable of doing.”