It is now well-known in even the Mockingbird Media circles that “Russian collusion” has been almost entirely debunked and based on a lie of a document funded by democrat operatives. Rod Rosenstein has admitted that there was no evidence of collusion in August of 2017 during a testimony under oath with Sen. Lindsey Graham.
As the “Russian Collusion” was being thoroughly debunked not just with the Mueller report, but later on with the Durham investigation and the Michael Sussamn and Igor Danchenko trials, mockingbird media outlets urged us to continue focusing on “Russian meddling” in our elections.
The Brennan Center in 2020 claimed that there was an ongoing attack using “similar tactics” as 2016 to target the 2020 election and democratic primary in favor of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The only problem is: it was all, mostly, a lie.
The Washington Post, who won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of “Russian collusion,” is under heavy scrutiny as they quietly released a study out of New York University that claims the Russia “meddling” in the 2016 election impacted “relatively few users”. And most were highly partisan Republicans. The article states:
Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning.
“My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets.
“Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.”
FOX News bashed the article as being “6 years too late” and journalist Glenn Greenwald said “Russiagate was – and is – one of the most deranged and unhinged conspiracy theories in modern times.”
But here is the biggest problem: the theory of “Russian collusion”, supported and promulgated by the FBI and many other establishment leaders, as well as “Russian meddling” was used to justify a crucial lame duck decision from the Obama administration in January of 2017, right before Trump was sworn in.
They made election infrastructure part of “critical infrastructure”, which gave oversight to the Dept. of Homeland Security.
The very same DHS that has colluded with non-profits to “secure” our elections at the local level on the federal governments dime through the CIS/EI-ISAC.
That same CIS/EI-ISAC is the same organization that is under fire from the Twitter Files that revealed they have a portal for government officials to “flag” what they consider mis and/or disinformation.
This federalized and, even worse, privatized our elections. The Obama Administration did this based on lies and fabricated documents. Several states, according to the AP, realized what a significant threat this was going to be:
The determination came after months of review and despite opposition from many states worried that the designation would lead to increased federal regulation or oversight on the many decentralized and locally run voting systems across the country. It was announced on the same day a declassified U.S. intelligence report said Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered” an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
The declassified report said that Russian intelligence services had “obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards.”None of the systems targeted or compromised was involved in vote tallying, the report said.
Even Georgia’s then Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who has been shunned by the election integrity crowd after his 2020 absence, knew the implications of this:
Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp, who is a member of the U.S. Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group run by DHS, is among those who have opposed the designation. Testifying in September to a House Oversight subcommittee, Kemp said more federal oversight could make systems more vulnerable and could make protected records more accessible.
When [DHS Secretary Jeh] Johnson discussed the likelihood of the designation in a conference call with state officials on Thursday, Kemp called the action “a federal overreach into a sphere constitutionally reserved for the states.” According to a copy of his comments released by his office, Kemp told Johnson on the phone that “this smacks of partisan politics” given the dwindling days left in the Obama administration.
Kemp has appealed to President-elect Donald Trump to investigate “failed cyberattacks” on the Georgia secretary of state’s network that traced to the Department of Homeland Security, calling the department’s technical explanations insufficient.
We now have a privatized election cybersecurity infrastructure that is colluding with federal agencies to “secure” our elections while simultaneously silencing any American who questions it all based on a lame duck President’s decision using knowingly fabricated documents as justification.