Fake News or bad journalism... the CIA has not told us anything yet.

J

jem

All these outlets are reporting the CIA said. Well the CIA has not reported anything to us. They have not released their findings to us.
These are stories based on hearsay most likely from a politician summing up a consensus view. Hardly a reliable source. Certainly not to be seen as fact.
Have the CIA make a report and tell us what they found. Then this is a real story.

NPR Reports this..

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...des-russian-interference-aimed-to-elect-trump

Citing anonymous officials briefed on the issue, the Post says the CIA shared its findings with senators in a closed-door briefing last week, saying it was now "quite clear" that Russia's goal was to tip the presidency in Trump's favor:

" '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.' "

--
 
If it was a closed door meeting who told the media? If the media has trustworthy sources it must be somebody that wasn't supposed to be in a closed door meeting with senators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jem
I just saw this posted at breitbart... more at link...


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/

1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Timesreports: “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.” In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.

2. The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “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. Several CIA veterans, in fact, have urged caution about the leaked reports. As Newsweek reports: “‘I am not saying that I don’t think Russia did this,’ 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.'” Thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA’s conclusions are.
 
Julian Assange associate: It was a leak, not a hack and the DNC insider is NOT Russian
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12...-leak-not-hack-dnc-insider-not-russian-422765

A hole has been blown in the Democratic Party, and mainstream media’s narrative, that Russia was behind the leak of DNC emails to Wikileaks.

On Sunday, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said he has met the person who gave the DNC emails and it was not the Russians.

“I know who leaked them,” Murray told The Guardian. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

Murray, who is a close associate of Wikileaks head Julian Assange, explained it further on his website.

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two,” he wrote. “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”

It’s the reality that so many in the mainstream media ignore. It wasn’t about who leaked the emails. It was about what they said.

Assange himself vehemently denied Russia had any involvement in the hacks during an interview right before Election Day.
 
“And then you’ve got career intelligence officials who are leaking to the Democrats and saying things like, ‘The Russians did this to help Trump,’” he continued. “You can tell politicized intelligence immediately when they attribute motive to someone, rather than actions. Because the last thing you can tell, the hardest piece of intelligence, is to tell why something happened. You can tell what happened. You can say the results of what happened. When you say someone did something because of this, or for this reason, you’re projecting your thoughts into their heads, and that’s not possible. So it’s kind of a joke.”

Marlow said the media were trying to “brand it as a black-and-white situation where Donald Trump equals Putin, equals fascism, equals dictatorship, equals totalitarianism,” while “Hillary Clinton equals virtuous, equals Democrats, equals wonderful.”

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016...ed-intelligence-russia-hacking-election-joke/
 
Intel committee chairman: Report on Russia meddling conflicts with DNI testimony
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ia-meddling-conflicts-with-dni-testimony.html

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.

In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."

(More at above url)
 
FLASHBACK: When Obama Promised Putin “More Flexibility” After The Election
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/f...sed-putin-more-flexibility-after-the-election

As the left has worked to create their Russian boogeyman scenario to undermine the election, the words of President Obama have come back to haunt their farcical effort. As Barack Obama has criticized Trump for not taking a tough enough stance on Russia, his comments just four years ago about being “flexible” with Russia show his pathetic hypocrisy.

The Daily Caller reported: - President Barack Obama has repeatedly criticized Donald Trump for being too friendly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, yet he was singing a slightly different tune back in March of 2012.

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama said in a whisper to Medvedev.

“This is my last election,” he added. “After my election I will have more flexibility.”

Medvedev responded: ““I understand,” he whispered back to Obama. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].”

The White House has had to do a dizzying spin job to make this not look bad for Obama.

(More at above url)
 
my point by the way is that although I consider the transparency created by wikileaks very important and a good thing.... we have not been told by the CIA that the Russians did it.

So what we are seeing from many media outlets is trumped up or fake news to serve the establishment agenda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top