During her interview with Chris Wallace on Fox New Sunday, Hillary Clinton made an astonishing accusation:
“We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin.”
Do “we” really know that? Who is “we,” exactly?
The Obama Administration has not chimed in on whether the Russian government engineered the hack or the release of the emails through WikiLeaks. Some cyber-security experts have speculated that the hack came from Russia, but it is not definitive whether it was Russian criminal organizations or the government, itself, behind the hack.
So the assertion that “Russian intelligence agencies” were behind the DNC hack is irresponsible by itself, but to then accuse Trump of engineering this crime while in cahoots with Vladimir Putin redefines irresponsible.
And, it’s rife with self-delusion and projection.
If the American voter is concerned about a presidential candidate with nefarious ties to the corrupt Russian government, Peter Schweizer details how Clinton is the one the media should be scrutinizing.
In the Wall Street Journal, Schweizer details the connections between the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton State Department, the Obama Administration and the Putin government. His report centers on the city of Skolovo and initiiatives to encourage commercial entities here in the US who had close ties to the Clinton Foundation and Russian companies funded through a foundation backed by Putin:
Amid all the sloshing of Russia rubles and American dollars, however, the state-of-the-art technological research coming out of Skolkovo raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. Research conducted in 2012 on Skolkovo by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth declared that the purpose of Skolkovo was to serve as a “vehicle for world-wide technology transfer to Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine, energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology.”
Moreover, the report said: “the Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature.”
Technology can have multiple uses—civilian and military. But in 2014 the Boston Business Journal ran an op-ed placed by the FBI, and noted that the agency had sent warnings to technology and other companies approached by Russian venture-capital firms. The op-ed—under the byline of Lucia Ziobro, an assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston office—said that “The FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the companies.”
Ms. Ziobro also wrote that “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”
Schweizer concludes the tale with an epilogue which should raise eyebrows not just in the mainstream media, but on Capitol Hill as well:
What is known is that the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian “Silicon Valley” whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.
That’s right. While her foundation and State Department created a scenario with Putin’s regime where military technology appears to have been co-opted and developed for use against our allies, Clinton buried her head in the sand and offered the world nothing more than a big red reset button.
So what do we make of Clinton’s assertion that it is Trump who we must fear for his close (non-existent) ties to Putin while she is the one who has actually been financially entangled with the corrupt regime?
It’s called “projection“.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.
And lest you think Clinton’s projection is isolated to the Russian question, take a look at this passage from her DNC acceptance speech:
“Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign. He loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter.”
It has now been 240 days since Mrs. Clinton has held a formal press conference.