Here are some related articles… the first one in the list below is the one Dennis Prager is reading from:
➤ Wikileaks founder Assange on hacked Podesta, DNC emails: “Our source is not the Russian government”
- Russian Hackers and American Hacks – The CIA that misjudged Putin for years is now sure of his motives;
- FBI and CIA give differing accounts to lawmakers on Russia’s motives in 2016 hacks;
- 10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’;
- FBI Disagrees With CIA On Russian Influence In The Presidential Election;
- Reports: FBI has no evidence linking Trump, Russia;
- Wikileaks Keeps Saying Leaker Was Not Russian – Liberal Media Keeps Ignoring Them;
- UK Diplomat: I’ve Met the DNC Wikileaks Leaker and the Person Is an Insider – Not Russian;
- FBI Investigation Refutes CIA=> There’s No Evidence Russia Tried to Help Trump;
- Report: FBI less certain about the purpose of Russia’s hacking;
- Russian “Meddling” In Election: Most Overblown Story Ever? [Updated];
- Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking – sources
➤ [My Post a While Back] No, 17-U.S. Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails.
YOUNG CONSERVATIVES have this clip from TOWNHALL:
…Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber attacks. It’s all based on circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:
Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking.
During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.
[…]
The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.
Our intelligence agencies don’t all agree that the Kremlin is responsible.
The talking point that 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia was behind the hacks is not accurate….
More YOUNG CONS… “Here are the top 5 reasons why it isn’t accurate to definitively say Russia interfered in our election process. From Breitbart“
- 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.
- 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 Hillreported on Sunday.
- Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.The most that the CIA is alleging is that the Russians may have helped hack of the Democratic National Committee emails, as well as (possibly) the emails of Hillary Clinton campaign chaiman John Podesta. There is zero evidence Russian hackers messed with voting. Ironically, Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount has eliminated any doubt about the integrity of the results.
- Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: “That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released.” Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.
- What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.
