FBI can’t agree with politicized CIA’s faulty intelligence
12/22/2016 / By JD Heyes / Comments
FBI can’t agree with politicized CIA’s faulty intelligence

It’s becoming a game of “he said, they said,” between the FBI and the CIA over what President-elect Donald J. Trump has called a highly-politicized (and bogus) claim that Russia interfered in the presidential election to sway the results in his favor.

In recent days, the echo chamber “mainstream media” has been pushing the narrative that there is a “consensus” among CIA analysts that Moscow hacked the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton only, with the goal of helping Trump to win the election. This nonsensical and unexplained narrative is not supported by a whit of evidence, mind you, and is all based on the premise of undermining Trump’s legitimacy by, among other things, interfering with the final tally of the Electoral College, whose electors voted Dec. 19. (One thing missing here, by the way, is CIA Director John Brennan’s ringing endorsement of this “consensus.”)

Now, the FBI has waded into this fabricated “controversy,” and frankly, the bureau isn’t buying it.

As The Daily Caller noted, a senior FBI official who met with Republican and Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence did not concur with the CIA’s assessment, “frustrating Democrats.”

That Democrats were “frustrated” tells you all you need to know here, but we digress.

While the CIA believes that Moscow “quite” clearly wanted Trump to win, it is a very bold claim, and again, one that is not substantiated by any real evidence – one of the main reasons the FBI isn’t going along with the spy agency’s assessment. In fact, as Newsweek reported, veteran CIA operatives are warning the agency not to jump to conclusions because there is no substance to the claim.

But none of that matters. Nor does it matter that, had Clinton won and it was Trump who was challenging the victory, trying to mess with the outcome of the Electoral College and blaming his loss on Russian hacking, he would have been lambasted, shamed and called a conspiracy nut.

No one answering the most basic question here

The lamestream press has jumped on the bandwagon en masse, and so are some members of Congress. One – a congressman from Connecticut, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes – took to begging the Electoral College to vote instead for Clinton, the most security-compromised, criminally investigated presidential nominee in U.S. history.

All of this was meant to effect a “soft coup,”effectively denying Trump the presidency or, at the very least, denying him legitimacy.

That the FBI has stepped up and said it doesn’t agree with a small cadre of politically motivated CIA agents’ assessment that Moscow interfered is a good thing. Trump needs all the help he can get if he’s going to make good on clearing the D.C. swamp.

And for the record, the CIA and the lamestream media have failed to answer the most important – and basic – question in all of this: Why help Trump when Clinton is so compromised that Vladimir Putin would be writing U.S. foreign policy towards Russia?







Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.