From—amazingly—H.A. Goodman at HuffPo.
Stop blaming WikiLeaks.
Stop blaming Russia.
Stop citing a secret CIA report, especially since The New York Times published an article on October 31, 2016 titled Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia:
“Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. 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.”
Therefore, the FBI has already contradicted the CIA on its Russian conspiracy theories.
Was this New York Times article an example of “fake” news?
As for Russian interference through WikiLeaks, NSA Chief Mike Rogers is quoted on November 21, 2016 in The Hill stating DNC emails had little impact on the election:
“National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers said Sunday that he does not believe the publication of stolen Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
“I don’t think in the end it had the effect that [the hackers] had hoped it might,” Rogers said during a panel at the Halifax International Security Forum.
Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Az.) expressed a similar sentiment on Saturday, stating that, “I do not think that the outcome of the election was impacted by Russian hacking.”
The FBI and NSA have already contradicted The Washington Post and CIA. Even Sen. John McCain stated that he didn’t think “the outcome of the election was impacted by Russian hacking.”
Did the NSA’s Mike Rogers engage in a “fake” news conspiracy?
……But she won the popular vote!
Yes, but Clinton raised $1.4 billion and outspent Trump by a margin of 2:1. Also, California is the primary reason Clinton won the popular vote. As stated by Heavy.com, “Without California in the popular vote totals, Trump leads the rest of the states combined by more than 1.87 million popular votes.”
The hundreds of millions raised by Clinton were wasted on a campaign riddled with controversy, FBI probes, and allegations of election fraud.
It’s not the fault of Russia, WikiLeaks or Trump that Clinton wasted $1.4 billion. White nationalists didn’t cheat Bernie Sanders and sexism isn’t the reason Jill Stein voters shunned Clinton. At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton was such a polarizing figure that both left and right found reasons to either stay home or vote Republican.
Clinton lost Wisconsin.
The last time Wisconsin voted Republican in a presidential election was 1984; the state voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. White nationalism had nothing to do with Clinton losing Wisconsin, nor did Russia, “fake” news, or WikiLeaks.
Clinton lost Michigan and Pennsylvania. Michigan and Pennsylvania haven’t voted for a Republican nominee since 1988. Both states chose Obama over Romney and McCain.
White nationalism had nothing to do with Clinton losing Wisconsin, nor did Russia, “fake” news, or WikiLeaks.
Democrats knew they had to win the Electoral College, so any emphasis on the popular vote ignores why Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin voted for Obama, but chose Trump over Clinton.
Ultimately, Democrats picked a candidate who faced two FBI investigations, low favorability ratings, and Clinton Foundation controversies. Democrats would never accuse CNN of “fake” news, therefore let’s evaluate a piece titled FBI boss Comey’s 7 most damning lines on Clinton:
1. “Extremely careless”
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
2. “Should have known”
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position…should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
3. “Especially concerning”
“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government ― or even with a commercial email service like Gmail.”
4. “Still obligated to protect it”
“…even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
5. “Generally lacking”
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. “Hostile actors”
“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.”
7. “Sophisticated adversaries”
“She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”Were James Comey’s statements regarding Clinton’s handling of classified information examples of “fake” news? Is it Russia’s fault Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” with classified data or that “sophisticated adversaries” could have “gained access” to Clinton’s server?
Is it the fault of Julian Assange or WikiLeaks that Defense Secretary Robert Gates believed Russia, China and Iran may have hacked Clinton’s private server?
Were the 22 Top Secret emails on Clinton’s unencrypted server the product of a “fake” news story?
The latest public relations campaign from The Washington Post states that Russia interfered with America’s election. I explain here why the CIA has refused to provide evidence for such claims. Apparently, providing any proof pertaining to Russian hackers would help Russia.
Does this make sense to you?
Senator Angus King states “If you provide proof, you provide a roadmap to show the Russians how we caught them… including intelligence sources and methods.”
Welcome to 1984.
Without any evidence (emails, transcripts, photos, videos, suspects, etc.) the CIA and Washington Post have accused Russia of providing WikiLeaks with hacked emails.
The problem with this theory, aside from the pesky issue of evidence, is that Podesta’s emails involve the actual words of Clinton’s campaign. Essentially, Putin had the audacity to interfere by using Clinton’s own words, and the words of her campaign, against Democrats. Through these words, found within pristine emails in WikiLeaks DNC and Podesta releases, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (and four other DNC officials) resigned from the DNC and Donna Brazile resigned from CNN.
……Don’t blame Russia for influencing our elections without evidence. Hearsay isn’t evidence.
Don’t blame “fake” news for Clinton’s FBI investigation or Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
As I stated myself, Russia certainly has the capability to cyber hack, but I guarantee that Hillary’s corruption, and the flood of leaked emails from WikiLeaks, which showcased the vulgar bigotry and dismissive arrogance, of Podesta, the DNC, Hillary, Hillary’s aides, and the lapdog media, were the catalyst that convinced even undecided voters to reject her.