Is The C.I.A. Lying About “Russian Hacking?”

Get the latest from The Mind Unleashed in your inbox. Sign up right here.

We must all continue to sharpen our discernment skills as the days and weeks ahead pass on by. If it is not clear yet to the reader, we are all involved in a massive information-war as the Establishment tries to move forward with their latest bill known as H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 to censor free speech and blaming it “on the Russians.” With over 200 websites on their “fake news” list, the government is attempting to silence those who speak out against the government’s narrative. What few realize is that such a move is that of a fascist state. It is time to realize what is happening right in front of our eyes. 


Where’s The Evidence? 

While asking such an important but basic question can get you labeled now as a “Russian sympathizer” or a “Trump supporter,” it must nonetheless be asked. The question, “where’s the evidence” comes regarding a massive story that is circulating from sources such as The New York Times and Washington Post that said a secret committee within the C.I.A. has decided that the Russians hacked the DNC as well as hacked to help influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Election. However, after reading the articles, we find no direct evidence. In fact, nearly the opposite of what they’re proposing was stated:

“It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump.”New York Times

“There were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered. Intelligence agencies do not have specific evidence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wikileaks.” – The Washington Post

According to the Post then, there were disagreements about the assessment and they also do not have specific evidence proving their claims of Russia influencing the election. Yet, they push a story that tries to claim the opposite. That is the definition of fake news.

Additionally, questions must be asked about The Post’s analysis. What were these “disagreements among intelligence officials?” How minor were they? Why even write a story claiming the C.I.A. believes it was “the Russians” when the Post themselves admit in the article that no evidence, and more importantly, proof, even exists? 

In fact, today the FBI is asking for the evidence as well. The FBI says that such “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” claims are no substitute for real world evidence and proof.

Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray wrote an article claiming that there is no such evidence, and that if the C.I.A. had the evidence, they would be plastering it everywhere for the world to see:

“I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate itA little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilize a US election, even though the CIA ‘knows’ who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks.

America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever. They are absolutely making it up.” 

Craig Murray happens to also be a close associate and friend of Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange. Murry goes on to state that there is a big distinction from what is being claimed by the C.I.A. and most media outlets:

“I know who leaked them. I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

In other words, the leak is not a “hack” and has been done by an individual that helped to reveal the truth of the collusion that took place between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and multiple media outlets. While this article is not about defending Trump or Putin, it is about discerning the truth.

Some people have chosen to ignore the fact that emails showed Hillary Clinton knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIL while the Clinton Foundation simultaneously accepted at least $10 million dollars from those countries. Remember, Saudi Arabia is perhaps the world’s most violent abuser of human rights, next to Israel and it’s continued unlawful and unjust murdering of innocent Palestinians.

Some people also choose to ignore the fact that Hillary stated in the Wikileaks email release, “you need both a public and private position.”

Some people choose to ignore the fact that leaked emails prove Donna Brazile, a CNN and ABC reporter, as well as the DNC Vice Chair at the time, gave the Clinton Campaign debate questions in advance.

Keep in mind that President Obama went to the U.K. and urged Britains to vote “no” in the referendum that took place in June 2016. Is this not an act of influencing a foreign country’s democratic process? If believed not, then what is and where is the distinction between influencing and not influencing?

Remember too, in over 1 million documents released over the past 10 years by Wikileaks, not one of them has proven to be false. Sometimes the truth is very inconvenient to accept.

As activist and social engineer Chris Agnos recently said:

“Please remember that what they released was factual information. They did not create lies to try to manipulate an election. They simply exposed the truth. Big difference. If we don’t like the truth we see, then the answer is not to shame the ones who exposed the truth. The solution is to not be corrupt. I’m saying this as a former Democrat who sees the truth behind their real agenda, which is the same as the Republican agenda – more corporate dominance.”

Isn’t it ironic that many people are upset about Wikileaks revealing the truth once again, yet some of those same people have remained silent on President Obama’s approval of bombing 7 countries in the past 8 years, which has led to countless deaths?

We must consider that these revelations have yet to have been proven to have hurt anyone, along with the Snowden NSA document release. In other words, some people are upset that Wikileaks revealed uncomfortable truths that have physically hurt no one, but have remained silent on the Obama administration bombing 7 different countries, which has killed many innocent human beings. Some might not be as pro-peace as they believe themselves to be.

Additionally, some of those same people were okay with the fact that Hillary stated in an interview that she would attack Iran if she became president. She also made it clear she would not back down from Russia in a military conflict.

She also stated that Obama wasn’t militaristic enough, according to Democracy Now. In other words, Hillary would have continued to bomb more countries, including Iran, and possibly Russia, if she became president. And yet, we have some people upset because Trump wants to make peace with Russia? Again, some people aren’t as pro-peace as they claim to be.

While we do not need to agree with or support Donald Trump as a person, as human beings, we must all unite behind a genuine movement to establish peace with another nation and nuclear power (Russia). If Trump and Putin truly wish to establish peaceful relations between the U.S. and Russia in the weeks ahead, we must support this action. Again though, this does not mean we need to agree with or support either of them as people.

We must put our ego’s wishes aside and work together to create a more peaceful, harmonious world. As human beings, we all deserve the opportunity at establishing peace with other people around the world.

The C.I.A Regularly Lies

Do you remember when the C.I.A recently lied about their torture program?


Do you remember when the C.I.A. lied about Iran contra scandal?


Do you remember when James Clapper, the highest intelligence officer in the U.S. at the time, lied to Congress and to the entire world and said that the NSA does not collect data on citizens and every phone call?


Do you remember when the U.S. invaded Iraq and killed over 1 million Iraqis on lies and fake news, created by intelligence agencies and propagated by every mainstream media outlet, including the “prized” New York Times and The Washington Post?


Again, the truth can be difficult to learn when previously held beliefs are revealed as lies spewed out by the Establishment and their Elite companions. How can you be so sure that what you read each day from so called “respectable and honest” outlets is not yet another well-crafted piece of disinformation and propaganda? Our discernment skills will need to sharpen dramatically if still today we are relying on outlets that knowingly lie and propagate their agenda into the world.

Isn’t it ironic that NBC reporter Brian Williams, who has admitted to lying to the world about being “shot down in Iraq,” is now reporting on so-called “fake news”?

While many continue to believe the fake news being spread by the New York Times and the Washington Post about the C.I.A. claiming “it was the Russians” (without having any evidence or proof), the world will continue to wait for such evidence to be provided. If undeniable evidence and proof can be put forth, should necessary disciplinary actions take place against Russia? If evidence is not provided, should necessary disciplinary actions take place against MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, the C.I.A., Mike Morrell, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and several other “elites?”

What standards do we need to hold media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post to when they themselves engage in spreading propaganda and fake news? What standards should we hold them to when their fake news results in over a million deaths, like in that of Iraq? Should they also be included in the bill aimed at shutting down “fake news” websites?

As stated earlier, we are involved in an information-battle that the Elite are losing. The so called “fake news” bill is designed to shut down free speech and shut down sites that do not propagate the narrative that the Establishment wants to spread. However, it will not play out how the Elite would like and bigger truths are going to come out.

As Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the Edward Snowden/NSA spying story back in 2013 said:

“There are a lot more stories. The archives are so complex and so deep and so shocking, that I think the most shocking and significant stories are the ones we are still working on, and have yet to publish.”

Additionally, Edward Snowden said after the NSA revelations came out:

“Truth is coming and it cannot be stopped.”

Arthur Shopenhauer once said:

“All truth goes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed and ignored. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is accepted as self-evident.”

We are much closer to the third stage than most would like to believe and it will indeed be a very positive phase for our world. The fallout of the elite in this will be deep and extensive. Enjoy the show.

Image Credit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5