Attorney General Loretta Lynch let it slip what we all knew — that there is no evidence that the Russians hacked our election systems.
The Daily Caller reported:
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated Thursday that the United States intelligence community has not found any evidence of “technical interference” on the part of the Russian government on voting machines used in the 2016 election.
Lynch instead referred to Russia hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Speaking at an event hosted by Politico, Lynch explained that U.S. intelligence officers had been investigating the hacks since the summer and weren’t sure what they could “talk about publicly.
Lynch was asked about what is being done to bolster American confidence in the election systems to which she responded: “This is an ongoing process.”
“We’ve been talking about this now for some time since the summer when we began the investigation into the hacks of the DNC and the DCCC and trying to ascertain who was behind that,” Lynch said. “There’s a number of things we do, a lot of which we talk about publicly, a lot of which we don’t talk about publicly in terms of just investigation and the responses that we have.”
Lynch claimed that the government wasn’t certain about “what [it] could say about this publicly, and so that’s why you saw the intelligence community release a statement in October, a month before the election, letting people know that the intelligence community had determined that Russia was behind the hacks themselves.”
Take a look at the intelligence community statement from back in October via USA Today:
“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
They were “confident,” and they “believed,” that it was the Russians. No evidence for sure and certainly no evidence of the intent. Now, you tell me that these reports don’t represent an attempt at politicizing the hacks with a straight face … If the intelligence community was certain of the motive, this would likely be handled behind the scenes.
Seems odd that they would want to publish half-baked theories about something this serious — even though as we all know, countries engage in hacking each other on a regular basis. Moreover, cyber security has been a neglected issue for some time, but now that the left can use it to explain away their failures, suddenly it’s top of the list.
“The investigation is ongoing, certainly the review is continuing, but we rarely do that kind of public attribution,” Lynch continued. “But it was important in this instance because the election affects everyone. And it isn’t even a matter of the results. It’s people’s faith in the system.”
That faith in the system was shattered when the DNC leaks proved that the Dems rigged the primary for Clinton.
According to Lynch, after the hacks “the Department of Homeland Security was very actively engaged in reaching out to every state, to make sure that they had access to every resource they needed to protect the state electoral system as well, and fortunately we didn’t see any sort of technical interference that people had concerns about, in terms of voting machines and the like.”
So this is all one big dog-and-pony show to explain the left’s failures, distract from the damning information exposed by the leaks and to undermine the election results? That’s what I thought …