Liberal Pundits Suddenly Want Us To Uncritically Believe CIA Rumors
Michael Tracey

In fact, it’s worse than that. The “17 intelligence agencies” that Hillary mentioned (and the left continually parrots) that ostensibly confirmed the Russian government was behind the email hacks comes down to three paragraphs written by James Clapper. The statement is full of opinions and short on facts. “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions” it begins, but why?

Well, apparently because the hacks, quote “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” Which may be true, if you first assume that Russia would prefer that Trump were elected president instead of Hillary Clinton. An assumption you would be sure to have if you are a Democratic hyper-partisan such as James Clapper.

Further, Clapper goes on, “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.” So, no real evidence to point to Russia or its government, just a firm belief that they are behind it. What happened to the evidence-based policy that the left claims to be so fond of?

So there is really nothing there. This is the full extent of the “17 agencies” that have “found Russia is involved in hacking” emails of the DNC, DCCC, and John Podesta.

I’ll just make a side-note here that James Clapper has told lies in sworn testimony to congress. The lie was revealed in subsequent releases of information from Edward Snowden. Even though there is no denial at this point that the testimony was false, there has been no perjury indictment for James Clapper. He has now resigned from office, but not before acknowledging in front of Congress that “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don’t have as good insight into that.

So in October, he claimed that all these intelligence agencies that report to his office were confident that the Russian government was involved in the hacks, but after the election, on November 17, he admits that they actually don’t have good insight into the source of the hacks.

Okay, so back to the Washington Post article claiming that CIA sources are saying that Russia “hacked the election.” That’s the claim paraphrased, is it not? The Post claim hinged on what unnamed lawmakers had supposedly been told by unidentified, supposed CIA-linked sources in “secret” briefings. If we read through what the “journalists” claim, it’s pretty much summarized in one paragraph: “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.”

Hmmm… This actually sounds very familiar. Remember James Clapper’s statement as he claimed to speak for the entire US Intelligence community? Yea, that statement.

So this story is just a lot of re-hashed conjecture, premised on some clear falsehoods (the FBI has confirmed that the RNC was not hacked, even though the WaPo article claimed that “anonymous sources” said they were), and likely traced back to the same proven liar: James Clapper.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated TheLizard’s story.