Last week, Obama’s administration has stated that Russia and its hackers have meddled into the 2016 elections. Their intention was to allegedly help Donald Trump win easier.
However, the story is quite shady to begin with. The FBI has previously reached the opposite conclusion after conducting their own investigation even during the elections.
“Law enforcement officials (from the FBI) say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” The New York Times reported two months ago.
“And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump,” it added.
The CIA has obtained uncertain proof of this and there is no way to prove that the Russian hackers gave Wikileaks all the information needed for Trump to win the elections.
“Intelligence agencies (with the CIA) have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman,” The Washington Post reported Friday.
“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,” an unnamed senior official told the newspaper. “That’s the consensus view.”
Given this conclusion, why would the FBI claim otherwise? Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks has stated numerous times that he has nothing to do with the acquired information or any relations with Russia for that matter.
This Saturday, The Washington Post released a story in which they explain how the FBI was uncertain of Russia’s involvement in Trump’s win.
Michael Tracey, a prominent journalist who has been writing for liberal media like The Daily Beast and The New Republic, claims the same.
There is no evidence presented in this article. Liberals want everyone to uncritically accept anonymous CIA claims https://t.co/3Lw2vIAwRe
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 10, 2016
“There is no evidence presented in this article,” he tweeted Sunday, linking to the Post piece cited earlier. “Liberals want everyone to uncritically accept anonymous CIA claims.”
The Liberals directed the CIA to keep the source of the information anonymous even though they are quite contrary to FBI’s conclusions.