The Media (D) is pounding the ‘fake news’ story as the reason Trump won the election. But, we’ve been dealing with ‘Fake News’ for a long time. Here’s just one more example.
Democrats can’t handle that Hillary lost, or that she was just a poor candidate.
They need a scapegoat…
Oh, look! It’s the Russians!
That’s handy.
1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion.
“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.”
2. The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive.
“While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” The Hill reported on Sunday.
3. The CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election.
Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. ‘My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.’
4. Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.
There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
5. The Obama administration has a history of manipulating intelligence for political gain.
…“senior U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) leaders manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it appear that President Barack Obama is winning the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL).”
6. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures.
“That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.”
7. The fact that the Russians might constantly be trying to hack U.S. systems, and might even specifically have targeted the election, does not prove that they succeeded.
“Did Russia also hack Hillary’s campaign calendar and delete all her stops in rural Wisconsin, Penn., and Michigan?”
8. Foreign interference in elections is nothing new — and the Obama administration is a prime culprit.
In 2015, the Obama administration made a strenuous and not-terribly-well-hidden effort to swing the Israeli elections toward the opposition and away from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The State Department gave $300,000 to a “pro-peace” Israeli group, which then paid political activists whose goal was to unseat Netanyahu. In 1984, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) actually asked for Soviet help. Russian efforts to intervene would be bad, but not unique, either for Russia or for the U.S.
9. What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly?
Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.
10. Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for the “Russian hacking” story is that it is “fake news” that suits the left-wing media.
It is not unknown for Russia to use false propaganda to affect public opinion in foreign countries. Nor is it unknown for the U.S. media to use bias, “fake news,” and outright lies to shift public opinion in this country. The current focus on Russian “hacking,” based on no new evidence and — again — zero evidence of tampering with the voting process.
H/T: Breitbart
The CIA is framing this story as a hacking of the election process, but the real allegations are the alleged hacking of the DNC emails and perhaps the email of John Podesta. But, Julian Assange has consistently denied this.
Why are we here again?
Oh, right.
Hillary lost and the world is going to end because of it.
