From Russia with Fake News

Without any evidence, or intelligence consensus, media rush to blame Russians for Trump win

Having spent the better part of last week bemoaning the spread of so-called fake news, liberals are spending this week spreading their own fake news: that Russia hacked the recent U.S. election with the intent to boost President-Elect Donald Trump.

Based on a single report in The Washington Post written solely on the word of anonymous sources, progressive pundits across the country are sounding the alarm, even going as far to imply that the outcome of the election is a “national emergency” due to Russia’s alleged involvement.

“They can’t prove intent … absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.”

The eagerness with which the Left has seized on the “Russians-hacked-the-election” narrative is revealing. It is now clear that the progressive protestations about “fake news” heard last week were entirely insincere. “The CIA says Russia hacked the election to help Trump,” a Salon headline claimed. “Russian hackers meddled with the presidential election,” wrote Lee Moran wrote in The Huffington Post.

Of course, the Russians didn’t hack the election. The Left is spreading an intentionally misleading narrative intended solely to deceive. There is zero evidence whatsoever that Russia “hacked” the election — that they in any way altered or amended voting machines, voter rolls, or vote tallies.

The only the things the Russians may have hacked — allegedly — are servers at the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. But even the intelligence community as a whole is not in agreement with the unnamed agents who spoke to The Washington Post.

Do you support individual military members being able to opt out of getting the COVID vaccine?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

[lz_ndn video= 31735742]

Officials in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all U.S. intelligence services, said on Monday that they did not believe the CIA’s analysis is conclusive that the hacks came from the Russian government.

The CIA’s conclusion was a “based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked,” one of the ODNI officials said. “[It was] a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment,” he added.

“ODNI is not arguing that the agency [CIA] is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent,” one of the three officials said. “Of course they can’t, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.”

But not only is it not definitive whether or not the Russian government orchestrated the attacks, it’s impossible to prove that “Russian entities” — even if they did hack the Clinton camp — were also the ones gave that information to WikiLeaks.

[lz_related_box id=”258806″]

Craig Murray, a former U.K. ambassador and reportedly an associate of Julian Assange, told The Guardian that the CIA is “absolutely making [Russia’s involvement] up,” and Julian Assange himself has repeatedly denied Russia’s involvement. “I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider,” he insisted.

Clearly something strange is afoot. There is no consensus in the intelligence community of Russian intent to boost one candidate over another in the election, or even of Russian authorities’ involvement in the Clinton hacks, let alone that Russians — in the employ of the Kremlin or otherwise — were the ones who physically gave Julian Assange the emails he released through his website. It seems odd that mainstream media liberals would be so upset about “Russian hacking.”

The truth is the mainstream media are upset that their preferred candidate, for whom they twisted the truth and with whom they colluded to disseminate lies about Donald Trump and his supporters, was exposed — and they’re out for justifications and excuses.

Join the Discussion

Comments are currently closed.