Author and journalist HA Goodman’s latest publication, “Debunking The Trump Russia Myth: How Democrats Pushed Another Cold War to Justify Clinton’s Loss,” is especially timely given emerging details regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in both the Russia-tied Uranium One scandal, as well as the Fusion GPS dossier. In his newest work, Goodman successfully navigates the sometimes overwhelming level of hypocrisy with which Russian hacking claims have been investigated, based on zero evidence, and falsely reported to the public by legacy press.

In the opening chapter of his latest book, Goodman examines the stupefying lack of evidence for Russian hacking claims in multiple reports on the matter. Goodman points out that even the uncertain statements in the documents provide no evidence against Trump or Wikileaks, but are only given on condition of strong legal disclaimers which further throw their veracity into question. He writes: “Even with the vague assessments within the report, DHS and other agencies felt the need to write a disclaimer distancing themselves legally from the contents of the document.”

Goodman writes: “The DHS report’s disclaimer actually states the Department of Homeland Security “does not provide any warranties of any kind” pertaining to its findings and data… DHS and other agencies refuse to guarantee any of their grandiose claims… There’s no evidence of Russian hacking, Trump colluding with Russia, or WikiLeaks working with Putin; these myths were created to justify Clinton’s $1.2 billion loss.”

Ray McGovern, Veteran CIA Analyst and Whistleblower

Goodman writes that: “Ironically, the Trump Russia myth is founded upon a mountain of data that disproves its own narrative.” Despite this, establishment press has continued to spout allegations of Russian hacking as if they were grounded on legitimate findings.

Goodman writes of the legacy press’s long standing misrepresentation of the contents of such reports: “Without any mention of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange, the [Grizzly Steppe] report is still used by the media to justify bogus claims of WikiLeaks being linked to Russian intelligence.”

In his second chapter, Goodman observes that the Guccifer 2.0 persona has also received very little scrutiny from legacy press. This telling silence has continued, despite the Guccifer 2.0 persona being octen cited in establishment media reports on Russian hacking claims.

Goodman raises a very important question in this chapter: If Guccifer 2.0 did indeed hack the DNC, why has there been little to no investigation of Guccifer 2.0 by relevant authorities? This question strengthens the conclusions of Adam Carter, who has convincingly suggested that the Guccifer 2.0 persona was a creation of the DNC and Crowdstrike intended to preemptively smear Wikileaks’ publication of the leaked DNC emails – not a Russian hacker.

He writes of Crowdstrike: “It’s simply unbelievable that a roughly 1,000-word assessment from an outside tech firm with ties to the Democratic Party has been given so much influence in American politics.”

Goodman also points out that the Ukrainian military and British think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies have claimed CrowdStrike’s assessment was based on false data, “obtained… from the internet.” Goodman rightly raises issue with the establishment’s ongoing use of a faulty report originating with a private firm with financial ties to the DNC.

William Binney, Former NSA Technical Leader for Intelligence and Whistleblower.

In his discussion of Guccifer 2.0, Goodman cites the work of Adam Carter, the Forensicator, and Disobedient Media’s reports on their findings. He writes: “Numerous groundbreaking reports on the topic provide insight into why Guccifer 2.0 is a fabricated entity used by the DNC and possibly CrowdStrike to muddy the waters and confuse people into believing WikiLeaks was part of the Trump Russia narrative.”

Goodman cites Adam Carter’s  indication that the Guccifer 2.0 persona were most likely not Russian, but intentionally constructed to give an appearance of Russian origin: “Guccifer 2.0 never behaved or communicated like a hacker… Adam Carter also writes that CrowdStrike executives Shawn Henry and Dmitri Alperovitch likely worked on behalf of Clinton and the DNC in their efforts to perpetuate the Guccifer 2.0 operation.”

Goodman cites the work of the Forensicator and this author’s reports on the Forensicator’s findings. The analysis available, was eventually cited by the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in their memorandum to President Trump that expressed grave concerns regarding the legitimacy of Russian hacking allegations.

The Forensicator’s study suggests that the perpetrators of the Guccifer 2.0 persona were located in the U.S. and likely had direct access to a computer containing the DNC information when the files published by the Guccifer 2.0 persona were copied. This finding is separate from the subject of the origin of the Wikileaks DNC emails.

Goodman adds to this point by discussing an article published by The Nation which included statements from VIPS member and former National Security Agency Technical Director Bill Binney, who has long questioned the legitimacy of Russian hacking allegations. The article, though later heavily qualified, was groundbreaking in providing a legitimate voice of concern in terms of the lack of evidence that a Russian hack of the DNC ever took place.

Former FBI Director James Comey (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Goodman states: “The entire Trump Russia myth is predicated upon the notion that any advantages Trump gained from voters learning of Clinton’s corruption is unfair, whereas Clinton simply deserved the overwhelming leads in fundraising and overt media collusion.” Goodman rightly points out that in addition to the lack of evidence for Russian hacking, the publication of the DNC emails likely played less of a part in her spectacular loss to Trump than the infamous Comey letter notifying Congress of another Clinton email investigation.

Goodman observes that although Mueller is investigating Trump, there appears to be no specific charge against him, much less evidence to support a specific charge. He writes: “The best Adam Schiff could come up with is evidence of “deception,” which would have put Bill and Hillary Clinton behind bars for centuries.”

The mind numbing level of hypocrisy at play in events, reports and media coverage of the Russian hacking narrative can be overwhelming. By presenting the evidence as it stands piece by piece, Goodman is able to not only show that there is no evidence of Russian hacking, but that allegations of such activity may have been deliberately and recklessly designed to deflect blame from Hillary Clinton onto a nuclear power. His analysis is especially timely, given the furor currently surrounding Clinton’s involvement in Uranium One and the Fusion GPS Dossier.