The recent news article by the Washington Post that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Donald Trump is very, very fishy. Here are reasons why the story is fishy. First, the Washington Post is a left leaning newspaper that has supported Obama throughout his presidency and endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Second, the CIA report that was leaked to the newspaper (Why now?) stated, “The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency….” It doesn’t say there was evidence of Russian interference with the election rather it was a “secret assessment”. So what evidence lead to their conclusion? It is speculative and not conclusive. Third, if there is solid evidence to verify Russian interference in our election process why did the CIA issue it as a leaked vague report? It makes more sense to provide all Americans with the proof showing the veracity of the assessment. Fourth, what would motivate the Russians to want Trump to win when he has selected generals who are hard-liners towards Russia? It doesn’t make sense. Fifth, if there is evidence of Russian interference why would Obama order the CIA to issue a report before he leaves the presidency? Why not provide the nation with the evidence now?
Note also that the Washington Post does not specify how the Russians interfered with the election. Instead, they are vague and used the term “hacked” in their news story giving the impression that somehow the Russians manipulated our voting machines. People who are not knowledgeable might infer that somehow the voting machines were hacked.
In an interview with the Assistant Director of the Federal Election Commission last Sunday, Chris Wallace asked him if the voting machines could be electronically hacked. The FEC official said it was impossible. Wallace persisted and said why not? The FEC official stated that the machines were unconnected, stand alone machines. They are not computerized. So the only way they could be changed in any way is for a person to go to each individual machine and change the settings in each precinct. An impossible task!
So that leaves the hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails released by Wikileaks. Those e-mails clearly indicated that the Democratic National Committee members conspired against Bernie Sanders to prevent him from getting the nomination through dirty tricks and insure Hillary Clinton got the nomination. Since those Democrats use electronic communications like smart phones, they were easily hacked by any compete hacker. Think of all the stories of how corporations and banks have been hacked or how people have had credit cards hacked for example. The Democrats are angry because they got caught using dirty tricks.
On another level the story doesn’t make sense. Hillary Clinton used an unsecured server and was careless with classified information as Secretary of State. You can be sure that the Russians did hack her classified e-mails and became more aggressive knowing that nothing would be done to stop them.
Trump, on the other hand, poses a problem for the Russians. He openly stated during the election that he would rebuild the US military. As a result, why would Putin provide any support to a candidate who would build a military that would challenge his expansionist plans?
Finally, there is Paul Pillar, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, who said this about Trump in the most recent Washington Post report. “Given his proclivity for revenge combined with his notorious thin skin, this threatens to result in a lasting relationship of distrust and ill-will between the president and the intelligence community.”
Who is Paul Pillar? Yes, he did work for the CIA but he has played politics in the past. Here is what was revealed about him back in 2004.
“Before the 2004 Presidential election, The Wall Street Journal editorial page criticized ‘CIA insurgents’, including Pillar, for ‘engaging in a policy debate’ and were ‘clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry’” So Paul Pillar is biased in his politics. Is this a replay of 2004?
In September 2004, Robert Novak, syndicated columnist, wrote, “I reported on Sept. 27 that Paul R. Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, told a private dinner on the West Coast of secret, unheeded warnings to Bush about going to war. I learned of this because of leaks from people who attended, but many other senior Agency officials were covertly but effectively campaigning for Sen. John Kerry.” So why was Pillar spilling secret information to a group of people who did not have security clearance?
There is more. “In an October 2004 op-ed in the Washington Times, John B. Roberts II described Pillar as ‘a longstanding intellectual opponent of the policy options chosen by President Bush to fight terrorism’. Roberts questioned Pillar’s suitability to lead the writing of the NIE on Iraq, accusing him of disclosing, to academics and other nongovernmental personnel with whom the National Intelligence Council speaks, the advice given to President Bush.” Again, here is a CIA agent working on behalf of a Democratic presidential candidate. He played politics. Is he up to his old tricks?
“Another critic of Pillar’s speaking against Administration policy, focused around the dinner speech cited by Novak, suggested that CIA management, as a whole, might have been politicized against the Bush Administration. Observing that Pillar’s speech was preapproved by CIA management, Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard questions why ‘A senior, unelected CIA official—Paul Pillar—was given agency approval to anonymously attack Bush administration policies less than two months before the November 2, 2004 presidential election…His was not an isolated case; CIA officials routinely trashed Bush administration policy decisions, often with official approval, in the months leading up to the Iraq War and again before the election’”.
It is obvious that Paul Pillar is a dedicated Democrat who used his CIA job to try to influence an election in favor of John Kerry. It is equally obvious that the CIA will get engage in internal politics which it is not supposed to do. They did it back in 2004 and they are doing it now with President elect Trump.
The Washington Post CIA narrative is designed to deceive and confuse the American people. Think about it! The agency, with the support of the Obama Administration, issues a “leak” purporting to show a foreign power interfering with an American election on behalf of a particularly candidate but offers no evidence to support the assessment. The evidence should be given to the public NOW.
Why isn’t it given now? Because it doesn’t exist! It is a smear campaign. Remember how the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign tried to smear Bernie Sanders and derail his presidential candidacy. This is just more of the Democrats dirty tricks to cover up their misdeeds.
Finally, if the CIA had conclusive evidence that Russia interfered with the election before and during the presidential campaign, why didn’t they report on it and give details about HOW the Russians were interfering with the campaign? By not bringing this to the attention of the American people during the campaign, it was gross negligence on the part of the CIA. They failed the American people. Or was there no evidence and this is why there was no report during the campaign?