in , ,

5 problems with CIA claim Russia/Putin hacked the U.S. election (VIDEO)

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

When unnamed officials from the CIA recently claimed that Russia hacked the U.S. Presidential Election, but failed to provide any evidence, suspicions immediately circulated that the allegation was a complete fabrication — particularly as left-leaning corporate media unquestioningly parroted the story.

The Washington Post tried — and miserably failed — to convince the U.S. populace professional Russian propagandists were running nearly every alternative and independent media outlet, and had plotted to smear Hillary Clinton, by publishing John Podesta’s emails to ensure Donald Trump’s victory.

The Free Thought Project wrote:

“In tandem with the ratcheting up of anti-Russia propaganda by the left political and media establishment has been the equally laughable war on putative fake news, because — according to Clintonite Democrats and a smattering of Republicans — fake news also helped Trump win.

Of course, the irony in all this is the mainstream media’s articles on the CIA’s claims and allegations of Russian meddling are the exact sort of fake news which threatens to do actual, physical, palpable damage — whether by crushing dissent or instigating war with the U.S.’ old Cold War foe.

Fortunately, alternative media — sans any paychecks from President Putin — and a few journalists with integrity have brilliantly torn through the American propaganda machine to shine the light of truth on claims of Russian hacking.”

Ben Swann, an investigative reporter who’s been praised for covering controversial and undercovered stories, reveals five problems with the CIA’s claims against Russia’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.

Here are 5 problems with the CIA’s claims that Russia hacked the U.S. Presidential Election:

  1. The CIA did not formally release a report about Russia’s hacking — rather anonymous sources inside the agency allegedly leaked the “conclusion” to WaPo and NYT.
  2. These anonymous sources did not provide any evidence to support their statements.
  3. THE CIA LIES. In 2016, the Senate Intelligence Committee blasted the CIA for an “ongoing culture of misinformation.” A 4-year, $40 million Senate report revealed the CIA lied about brutal torture techniques after 9/11. Oh, and let’s not forget about the CIA’s assessment of Iraq’s WMDs.
  4. CIA investigators do not even agree on the assessment, according to WaPo’s article.
  5. Wikileaks’ founder and editor, Julian Assange, has repeated said it was leak – not a hack.

The Duran’s editor-in-chief Alexander Mercouris reported earlier this month that former UK Ambassador has actual met the individual who leaked the emails to Wikileaks – and they were not Russian.

On the subject of his personal knowledge, reputation for truthfulness, and credibility, Craig Murray had this to say:

“Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.”

Swann concludes by saying, “Look, I have said this before and I will say it again: how bizarre is it that the argument is not that the Russians were trying to influence the election through lies or electronic voting; but, rather, the claim — if you really boil it down — is that the Russians swayed the election for Donald Trump by revealing the truth about the Clinton campaign and the truth about the DNC.”


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Berlin terror attack: police name Tunisian asylum seeker as possible suspect

Evacuation of Jihadis from Aleppo due to end today