The “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) report on supposed Russian interference in the U.S. election, is a joke and contains absolutely zero evidence that Vladimir Putin’s government had any influence at all on the U.S. presidential elections.
The report, which can be read in full here, instead contains the laughably obvious claim that Putin “publicly favored Trump” (which he did), that the RT news service carried programs on the election, and repeated the totally unproven claim that the Russian secret service leaked emails to Wikileaks.
Nowhere in the report, titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” is any evidence presented showing that anything that the Russians might or might not have done, had any influence on the election.
In fact, on the report’s very first page, under the heading “Scope and Sourcing,” the report states very clearly:
“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”
Of the 13 pages in the report, seven are taken up with discussing the RT (formerly Russia Today) news service and its programs.
This is the report’s attempt to show how Russian “propaganda” sought to influence the election.
Even if coverage of Clinton by RT was hostile, this pales in comparison with the support given to Clinton by all the U.S. media, which had a far greater reach than RT could ever have.
The claim that “RT influenced the election”—which forms the largest part of the “intelligence report” is therefore, utterly bogus and irrelevant to the “hacking” hysteria.
In the remaining part of the report, one page is taken up with a graph comparing the number of YouTube viewers, subscribers, Twitter followers, Facebook likes, and Facebook “chatter” of RT, Al Jazeera, the BBC and CNN—as if this had any bearing on anything.
Another page is taken up with an academic explanation of “estimative” language, which is also completely irrelevant to the “hacking” allegations.
This leaves only five pages to actually discuss the so-called Russian “hacking”—but a reader looking for that discussion will be sorely disappointed.
Claims of hacking are limited to exactly two sentences, buried on pages 2 and 3 respectively, where it is said that the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU)
“used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.”
Once again, absolutely no evidence is presented for this claim, and the report even admits that it is not sure who “Guccifer 2.0” actually is, or where it is based, and then, in the second sentence, repeats the unproven claim that hacked emails were leaked to Wikileaks by the Russian government to “undermine” Clinton’s campaign.
“Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June. We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity.”
The rest of the report is merely a concoction of statements of the obvious, centered around the openly-acknowledged hostility between Clinton and Putin.
For example, the report “assesses” that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”
That is no secret—nor is it any source of wonder, given Clinton’s overt hostility to Putin, which the report later on admits.
The report goes on to say that Putin “publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as US-directed efforts to defame Russia”—(which they were), and adds that Putin “sought to use disclosures to discredit the image of the United States and cast it as hypocritical.”
Once again, this supposed “killer fact” is nothing but a statement of the obvious. The U.S. establishment, and its controlled media are indeed hostile to Putin’s Russia, and it is little wonder that the Russian government would not hesitate to call out their hypocrisy.
Putin, the report said, “avoided directly praising President-elect Trump, probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States. Nonetheless, Putin publicly indicated a preference for President-elect Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia.”
This statement is so absurd that it nearly beggars belief: Why on earth would Putin not publicly prefer a candidate who was not threating hostility toward Russia?
Significantly, in its “key judgments” section, the report specifically sates that the “DHS [Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying”—in other words, hacking of any sort played no role in the actual voting itself.
This “report” will go down in history as the second greatest tissue of lies and distortions in the U.S. “intelligence” service’s history, and is only topped by their outrageous lies which claimed that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction.”