The latest media offensive against Donald Trump is underway, this time with the help of the CIA and President Obama, as a single unnamed source cited in a Washington Post article has cemented the idea that Russian hackers influenced the election in the heads of left wing journalists everywhere.
Not only does The Washington Post article claim that the Russian's tampered in the election, but they specifically did so with the objective to help Donald Trump win the election.
So the "consensus view", according to a likely Democrat official who was briefed by the CIA, is that government sponsored hackers from Russia tampered with the U.S. election to such a degree that it actually helped Donald Trump get elected.Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emailsfrom the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances. “It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”
What happened to Barack Obama claiming that there is absolutely no rigging possible of the election and that Donald Trump should stop "whining"?
Donald Trump sent out a tweet today that sums up this entire Russian hacker narrative quite nicely, and this should be all that voters need to know about this endeavor by the anti-Trump forces to delegitimize his presidency.
The mainstream media, which I'm not even sure it should be called that anymore, has become an echo chamber of whatever narrative the Democrat controlled government is pushing at the time. In fact, they have been so coordinated with the anti-Trump attacks that align perfectly with the Democratic party's narratives that they could more accurately be referred to as the "propaganda media", or the propaganda arm of the leftist establishment.
Despite the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton only won because of California and if you subtract that state then Donald Trump won the 49 other states by about 2 million votes, the reality is that Trump won a staggering amount of landmass, achieving victory in 3084 of the 3141 counties in the United States.
All you have to do is look at a county by county map of the 2016 election results, and it should leave no doubt in your mind that Trump won this election in a landslide with an overwhelming portion of our country voting for him.
Judging from the shear amount of landmass represented in this picture in favor of Donald Trump, it looks to me that the Democratic party should rename itself to the "urban party", as densely populated cities are the only places that Hillary Clinton saw even a shred of victory.
The crime that the media is accusing the Russians of is hacking and releasing emails, not the actual content of the emails proving collusion within the DNC to suppress the Bernie Sander's vote while helping Hillary Clinton's campaign behind the scenes? Again, it's never the corruption itself that the media criticizes, but the fact that the Democrats got caught.
Hillary Clinton didn't even campaign in Midwestern states like Wisconsin, and barely showed up in Michigan and Pennsylvania, while Donald Trump was holding 3 to 5 rallies a day across the country and visited those areas many times. Yet, somehow the Democrats are shocked that she didn't win Wisconsin, after campaigning there for a total of 0 times.
The fact is, Donald Trump worked harder and met directly with the voters of these states, while Hillary Clinton was spending most of her time with millionaire donors and celebrities.
Even The New York times criticized Clinton in August for hardly holding any rallies that month, opting instead to focus on fundraising parties, with a piece titled "Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich".
It should be obvious to even her most diehard supporters, that the Clinton campaign's arrogance and expectation that they had the election in the bag is what really lost her this election, not the Russians.
And now we have the media blasting Trump for remaining skeptical of the CIA report on Russian hacking, which by the way no evidence has been made public and The Washington Post is the sole source being cited for these stories, when the reality is if President Bush would have questioned the "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" intelligence, then perhaps America would not have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives and created a power vacuum giving rise to ISIS by invading Iraq.
Politico published an article blasting Trump for not taking every word of the CIA and intelligence communities as gospel, stating that is putting "fear" in the spy agencies.
Some fear that Trump's highly public rebukes of the U.S. intelligence apparatus will undermine morale in the spy agencies, politicize their work, and damage their standing in a world filled with adversaries. After all, if the U.S. president doesn't believe his own intelligence officials, why should anyone else?"There is nothing more sacred to intelligence officers than their professionalism, honesty and non-partisanship. Trump's charges strike at the core of their integrity," said John Sipher, a former CIA officer with broad expertise on Russia.Although the article states that the intelligence agencies fear the "politicization" of their work, I'd say considering the way the FBI and CIA is being used by Obama, their fears have already come to life.
It should be admirable for a change that a president questions the intelligence he's being given and not taking every conclusion as fact, since their is ample precedent for the intelligence community being completely off target in the past.
Even the FBI has come out today to dispute the CIA's "Fuzzy And Ambiguous" claims that Russia tried to influence the presidential election.
The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.The fact of the matter is, according to the New York Times of all places, that the CIA has not acquired any new data since the election that would shine any light on the source of the DNC hacks.
The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bold and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.
The FBI official was much less convinced of the claims, providing “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” remarks.
The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.Logically, if there is no new evidence since election, but the conclusion of the CIA report has changed, then some outside force has been influencing them in order to try and discredit Trump's historic victory. Perhaps the fact that Barack Obama, whose very legacy is at risk from a Donald Trump presidency, has a political motive for encouraging the CIA to release this revised report with no new evidence to support their claims.
The real story here isn't Russian hackers, it's that the American media interfered with the election, covering up the many scandals of Hillary Clinton while distorting every statement they could by Donald Trump, but of course that won't make the headlines.
