Posted on 12/12/2016 2:42:22 PM PST by Rufus Shinra
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 emails from 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?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."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.
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.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.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 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.
This is pure insanity, they would rather see our country burn than actually work with Trump to make it better.
The real reason is that Donald got 67% of the vote, that is the only way for a Conservative God fearing man to beat a satan worshiping leftist scum.
The Wikileaks stories were true, regardless of where they came from. Whoever hacked the stories did the job that the MSM wouldn't do. We got glimpses of the TRUTH for once. I do not, for the life of me, understand how any of this disqualifies Donald J. Trump.
I heard a guy on FOX NEWS say that Trump called his pal Putin and asked him to meddle with the election. What is going on now is totally unprecedented. Part of me thinks they are just trying to get him to blow his lid. Frankly, I wouldn’t blame him if he did.
By the third paragraph they print a lie. The CIA has stated the two individuals do NOT have a direct contact with the Russian government. Then they say this is how the Russians typically work.
I did finally read something on DU that I agree with:
“The Trumpers love our tears.”
1. DJT Stumped hard. HRC did not. Voters noticed.
2. The DNC had a game plan. The Bernie voters noticed.
3. Stein is being paid. By who? The master of puppets Soros? Or, is DJT trying to expose voter fraud? It’s sort of odd that courts are rejecting recounts. ARE THE COURTS attempting to thwart DJT from exposing DNC voter fraud?
.
The Left has become completely unhinged by Trump's election. I thought I had seen it all in the past with their attacks on Reagan and Bush II, but you're right, this is "unprecedented."
“Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials.”
So... What was leaked is, in fact, true? We’re not talking fabricated propaganda here, we’re talking nothing more than revelation of actual communications? And that with no more than “selective revelation” insofar as Right wing documents were not revealed - which may be because there was not damming evidence there?
They’re wanting a do-over, at risk of civil war, just because their emails were released? Not like we’re going to magically forget what was revealed. Not like the Left ever consented to “forgetting” revelation of malpractice by their opponents. They were exposed as lying bigoted abusive crooks - try not doing that, and maybe you’ll get better results.
The CIA works for George Soros not the USA. Hope Trump purges them first. Start with all Yalies. Out they go.
EMERGENCY! EVERYBODY TO GET FROM STREET!
I’m beginning to think the dems are afraid of what Trump will discover about Obama’s stay in the WH. They’re deathly afraid of something.
And get the Dems to pay for it, too?
Sure looks that way.
The Russians did it. The Russians did it. The Russians did it. The Russians did it.
If the Russians hacked the DNC and Hillary’s server and in particular the Clinton Foundation server, they would have done everything in their power to keep the information from the public. In this manner a President Hillary would be total susceptible to Blackmail. Putin would have owned her corrupt, criminal, vicious, grifting lying ass.
The Russians did not do it. It is obvious that someone had almost total access to the DNC server, and probably Hillary’s server and possible the Clinton Foundation’s server. This kind of access normally comes from the inside of an organization. Alternatively it could have been a patriot inside the NSA or the FBI.
Next question?
The REAL reason she lost: Hitlery is a venomous harridan, and just enough Americans in just enough states realized it and voted against her!
The “Forgotten Men and Women of America,” deplorable and irredeemable they may be, realized that Hitlery the venomous harridan did not have the qualifications or disposition be be POTUS.
That is it, plain an simple.
BTW, a harridan is a vicious and scolding woman, especially an older one. “Harridan” is a modification of the FRench word “haridelle,” meaning “old horse, nag.”
AFAIK, there is no single word to describe the male equivalent of a harridan. HST, Tim Kaine is one!
“Harridan” is an appropriate term for Hitlery, Pelosi, Debbie, et al, but we need a single word that captures the essence of nasty, hateful male LIEberals!
I would also add that in the regions where they voted both Obama and Trump, there has either been no recovery or because the recovery has been due to exploitation of Gas, Dems do not get any credit for the recovery.
Boom! Well said, Husker!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.