United States Government agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA), and a multitude of personalities, have claimed that Russia had influenced the Presidential Election of 2016. An intel report was generated, pay attention to the words “assessment” and “assess” in the document. An assessment is not proof.
Firstly, information of note in the document:
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.
Is Larry King a Russian operative because he appeared on RT?:
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email.
In the report, the FBI is one of the United States Government intelligence agencies to make an assessment based on Russian politicians, Russian Television, and Russian trolls on social media. How can you make an accurate assessment if you never requested to look at the DNC systems? Does that make any sense?
Besides the intel report, here are other times Wikileaks was vindicated:
Hillary Clinton confirmed that documents taken from her campaign and published online this month are authentic, WikiLeaks said on Twitter.
“Clinton once again confirmed the authenticity of our documents with her response to WikiLeaks question,” WikiLeaks said in a tweet during Wednesday evening’s presidential debate. The group included a link to messages it said were obtained from campaign chairman John Podesta.
The network said the move happened on Oct. 14, after WikiLeaks first released emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that showed Brazile had sent along questions to Clinton’s campaign.
But its decision to go public with the statement came shortly after more WikiLeaks emails showed that earlier exchange to be part of a pattern. In early March, before an upcoming CNN town hall, she suggested Clinton work on her explanation that she approves of the death penalty.
The email contents are not refuted; therefore, the DNC, John Podesta, Hillary Clinton and associates, journalists, and others who conspired to denigrate Bernie Sanders and other opponents, are guilty of trying to sway public opinion. What the United States Government intelligence agencies failed to do is provide a separate report on the collusion that took place from those mentioned above.
If the United States Government planned to place sanctions on Russia, why is there no outrage or punishment placed on those who colluded to sway public opinion by those mentioned above?
In a March 2016 email, Mark Alan Siegel, a former New York State Assemblyman and Democratic official, advised the Clinton campaign staff to offer Bernie Sanders and his supporters a reduction in future super delegates to pacify them. “So if we ‘give’ Bernie this in the Convention’s rules committee, his people will think they’ve ‘won’ something from the Party Establishment,” he wrote. “And it functionally doesn’t make any difference anyway. They win. We don’t lose. Everyone is happy.”
Compilations of emails curated by Wikileaks:
List of questionable journalists ousted by Wikileaks:
This is an attempt to cover up the embarrassment of a lost by the “favored candidate” of those in the Washington establishment. The fact that the United States intelligence agencies are pushing out reports based on assumptions, without evidence, is crazy.