The Undeniable Pattern Of Russian Hacking (Updated)

| Educate!

Above Photo: Jeff Darcy,

A wide review of news sources finds an undeniable patter of international “Russian hacking” claims:

  • Many, if not all such accusation, are based on say-so by some anonymous “official” or self-promoting “expert”.
  • Many, if not all such accusation, are rebutted within a few days or weeks.
  • News about any alleged “Russian hacking” is widely distributed and easy to find.
  • News of the debunking of such claims is reported only sparsely (if at all) and more difficult to retrieve.



United States





United Kingdom

The undeniable patter of “Russian hacking” is that any claim thereof is likely not true and will be debunked in due time.

These remarks on the “Russian hacking” allegation in relation to the U.S. election are therefore quite appropriate:

President Trump again cast a skeptical eye on intelligence community assessments that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, saying Thursday while on a visit to Poland that “nobody really knows for sure” what happened.

Trump also compared the intelligence about Russian interference with the faulty assessment that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002, which provided President Bush with a justification to go to war.”Guess what, they were wrong, and that led to one big mess,” he said.

Update (June 7 3:00am Est):

To frame today’s Trump-Putin talks at the G20 meeting in Hamburg (and to prove the above, timely post correct?) U.S. media issued three new story today implicating “Russian hacking”. The stories are made up of rumors, fearmongering and of reports of banal phishing attempts on some administrative systems. While all three implicate Russia they naturally contain ZERO evidence to anything related to that country.

In the very likely case that the above described pattern of “Russian hacking” holds, all three stories will be debunked within the next few days or weeks.

  • All that is claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

  • DHFabian

    The US has a long record of “hacking” other countries. So does China, etc. It’s called “the norm.” Clearly, the intent here is to promote the Clinton allegation that “Russia hacked the election!” This is a false allegation that was begun within one week of the election, at which point investigations by the leading US security agencies began. No evidence of any sort of Russian interference or involvement has been found. None. Half a year later, the Clinton camp demand that investigations continue until something is “found” to support the allegations.

    This past week, we saw the return of claims that Russia hacked into voting machines to ensure that Trump “won” the most votes. This is the weakest allegation of all. If Russia did this, how do you explain the fact that Clinton got the most votes? Trump got the most electoral votes, and that’s something that Russia (or any other country) can’t hack into. People have been calling for an end to the convoluted electoral system for many years, going to the direct vote.

    2016 election results
    Clinton 48.5% votes – 65,853,516 – 232 electoral votes
    Trump 46.4% votes – 62,984,825 – 306 electoral votes

  • Bella_Fantasia

    A dysfunctional behaviour, such as Clinton blaming her loss on Russian hacking, starts for one reason, but can continue for other reasons. At this point we can clearly see how this dysfunctional behaviour (blame the Russians) has become a useful and versatile explanation to prevent and subvert any deep analysis of nearly all of the issues discussed.

    The Republican wailing war cry of ‘Bengazi’ has now become the bi-partisan war cry of ‘Russian hacking’. It works like a mental stop sign.

    The only ones stuck and failing to see the ‘beauty’ of blaming the Russians and and their hacking is the Clinton Foundation. That group just cannot move on.

  • The reason we have cheeto-head in the White House is that the DNC did everything in its power during the nomination process to thwart Sanders – who consistently polled well ahead of Trump – and promote Clinton – who consistently polled neck and neck with Trump.

    Blaming the Russians for Clinton’s loss enables the DNC to avoid facing that fact.