Thursday, December 15, 2016

Washington Post Story That CIA Reported Russia Wanted Trump Proved a Lie.

The Democrats latest attempt to try and undo an election they legitimately lost is now being fueled by an article in the Washington Post that claimed that the CIA concluded that the Russians not only were behind the hacks of the the DNC and Podesta emails, but the element that has gotten the most traction is that the Russians did it because they wanted Trump to win.

The Washington Post article and its assertions are bogus. False.A lie. And provably false. And are as much "fake news" and more hackery as any "fake news" that people consider a problem because there are those who believe it. There is proof that the story was nothing but a hatchet job by 3 unscrupulous Washington Post reporters,Adam Entous,Ellen Nakashima, Greg Miller, and their editors and the unnamed anonymous "official" who had been "briefed". 

The Washington Post story has been picked up and spread by the usual suspects in the news media about CIA "conclusions" that the email hacks of the DNC and John Podesta were not just carried out by the Russians but with the intent to elect Donald Trump and have formed the basis of Democratic attempts to get Trump electors to betray their voters in states Trump won  much the way Democratic super delegates betrayed Democratic voters in states Bernie Sanders won to nominate Hillary Clinton. And its at the heart of their campaign. And the reason for its fabrication.

The Post article which claimed the CIA concluded that the Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta because they wanted Trump to win is not just false, not just provably fake, but another attempt by Democrats colluding with the Post whose reputation for honest journalism along with that of the Times and CNN, MSNBC and others were already exposed as dishonest by those same hacked emails.

 So far  the "CIA conclusions"  reported by the Washington Post have been debunked by the FBI and NSA who say no such conclusions exist.  Which means they cannot be called "conclusions" at all since "conclusions" are conclusive.In fact they may not be CIA conclusions at all.  James Clapper testified they dont even have strong enough evidence to prove Russia was behind the hacks in the first place much less that it was done to elect Trump. But beyond that there is obvious proof the only real  'intent" exposed in the Post article was the intent of the Post in collusion with others, most likely a member of the Obama administration, at fabricating this "conclusion" to suit their own agenda to undermine the election by hoping to convince Trump electors to betray the voters of their own states on December 19 when electors meet.

First,no document or report exists that states the CIA concluded Russian hacks of Podesta and DNC emails was motivated by Russia wanting Trump to win. And the reporters didnt ask for any, otherwise they would have said so. And if such a document did exist they would have seen it or at least referenced it. The "conclusion" was an obvious  fabrication fed to them by this unnamed "official" not in the CIA as will be proved, and which the Post willingly reported while offerering nothing to substantiate the claim.

 The source of this "conclusion", the "anonymous government official" is  clearly not connected to CIA. We know this because this "official" is described as "having been briefed". The CIA is not briefed, they do the briefing. And it is clear this "conclusion" comes from this  "anonymous official" not the CIA and who is almost assuredly a Democratic member of the Obama administration with a high enough security clearance to be credible and who intentionally fed this "conclusion" to the Post reporters without anything to back it up which the Post reporters  and editors willingly used to further the Post  and Democratic party agenda.

We know there is no such document or conclusion as to Russian motives in wanting Trump for two reasons. One,it's demonstrably and easily proved false, a truly stupid conclusion which can be proved false on the facts already known and the CIA is not stupid. But dishonest journalists and dishonest politicians always are. Secondly the CIA by its nature and  history does not typically draw or offer conclusions and certainly not without hard and irrefutable evidence. And as we already know both Clapper and the FBI have stated they have no hard evidence. Even Peter King, the Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee said all this is news to him. If he wasnt briefed and the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee wasn't briefed, and he wasn't, there was no briefing to be done and no such conclusion by the CIA, a false conclusion intentionally fed to the Post reporters with the sole intent of committing a hatchet job to further an agenda and not honest reporting.

In addition, Julian Assange who rarely speaks about sources, publicly stated in light of the Post article that the source of both the DNC and Podesta emails did not come from any government  and was not state sponsored and came from no one outside the United States but from an internal source within the United States with access to the emails who was disillusioned with what they were seeing, information the Post reporters could have gotten from Assange himself had they wanted to.

Drawing conclusions is not what the CIA does.They gather facts and, information, what is sometimes referred to as "actionable intelligence" if they can get it and they do analysis which everyone knows is an inexact science. That is their spycraft.  Then they present this intelligence and facts to civilian authority and leave it to them to draw conclusions from these facts and act on them.

 Civilians rarely get to see inside the CIA and how they work but the de-classified intelligence leading to the Cuban missile crisis is a window. The CIA and their U-2 spy planes discovered the presence of Soviet missiles being assembled in Cuba. They analyzed the photographs, were able to identity the missiles and their range and capability and presented the facts to the president. They drew no conclusions and offered no opinions as to the Soviets motives. That was for Kennedy and his advisors. Offering "conclusions" as to motives without hard evidence to back it up is not the CIA way.

There was and is no actionable intelligence that Russia hacked those emails and turned them over to Wikileaks to elect Trump or as the Times dishonestly reported, to "tip the scales in Trump's favor" .Its obvious from the Post article that it wasnt the CIA drawing the conclusion it was the non-CIA" official" who was clearly making a politically motivated insinuation, not a finding.

Yet the Post reported the CIA "concluded the intent and motive" of the Russian hacking was to help Trump win without  pointing to any specific evidence or even claiming the CIA had such evidence to support it.

 The Post reporters didn't even allude to any evidence or documents that supported this conclusion because they werent shown any. Because the "official" feeding them his or her own"conclusion" didnt have any to show and never saw any themselves. Because the evidence doesnt exist. And, as pointed out, the person on whom they were quoting isnt even CIA. Without hard specific evidence the CIA never draws specific conclusions and with hard specific evidence they wouldnt have to since the evidence would speak for itself. 

The attempt to claim the CIA has ascribed intent by the Russians to elect Trump is so obviously stupid and clumsy aside from having already been debunked it is clearly a fabrication by a politically motivated "official" tying to poison the well  with the help of the Washington Post as a conduit before the electors meet December 19 in the threadbare hope of undoing the election. So we know the assertion could not have come from the CIA as an offcial CIA "conclusion". Because the assertion is not just provably false but demonstrably stupid. And the CIA is not stupid. Even when they are wrong they are not stupid.

Nowhere does this "official" claim they saw any CIA documents or memorandum that drew this conclusion and the FBI and NSA said that evidence that it was Russia behind the hack is "tenuous"in itself much less that the  hack was motivated to make Trump president.

Instead the Post article is based on a "government official who had been briefed". And no attempt was made or offered at corroborating this "conclusion" with another source. 

Anyone who ever saw "All the President's Men" knows that Post editor at the time,Ben Bradlee, insisted Woodward and Bernstein corroborate a Watergate story with 3 independent sources before the Post would publish it.Yet a story of this magnitude, that the "CIA concluded" Russia hacked the emails to help Trump was printed without a single corroboration from any other source and the "reporters" didnt even try to get any because they would have failed and its clear their own source, the anonymous "official" couldnt offer any either.

It can't be overstated: the Washington Post story did not quote and did not cite an actual CIA source for their story. Or any documents. Or any substantive proof. Or get any corroboration.

The FBI  says there is no evidence of it, Clapper said there was no evidence of it and other journalists who have direct contacts inside the CIA and who are not as hostile to Trump have reported the CIA made no such conclusion.

But what completely exposes the Post story as "fake news" is that the hack of the DNC emails during the Democratic primaries, supposedly also by Russia, were all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the candidate all polls showed was the most likely to beat Trump. 

The DNC emails exposed Clinton, the DNC and Debby Wasserman-Schultz, their Democratic  party enablers and the news media in places like CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and Washington Post, as a vipers nest of  lies, rigging, collusion, fraud, dishonesty all in a concerted effort to rig the nomination for Clinton and defeat Bernie Sanders who blindsided them with the strength of his support. It greatly damaged Clinton and the DNC  during the primaries, forced Wasserman-Schultz to resign, angered Sanders supporters, showed the DNC and Clinton campaign privately mocking Sanders and if anything, weakened Clinton's chances at the nomination during the primaries all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders.

If the Russians were behind the hacks (and the FBI and NSA say that is "tenuous") and if  they did it because they wanted Trump to win as the Post story stupidly claims, then why would they give DNC emails to Wikileaks that damaged Clinton and benefitted Bernie Sanders when all the polls showed Sanders the candidate most likely to defeat Trump? Every poll showed Sanders beating Trump by double digits while the match up between Trump and Clinton was much closer with Clinton having an edge of 4-6 points. 

The DNC email hacks and what they exposed cast Bernie Sanders as the victim of Clinton and DNC deciet,fraud,lies and collusion with an in the tank dishonest media at CNN, MSNBC,the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico and other lesser outlets, helping in their attempts at suppressing Sanders turnout and fundraising, and aiding in the collusion with Debby Wasserman-Schultz to rig the nomination for Clinton all of which angered Sanders voters.So what's the explanation for Russia helping the candidate who had the best chance of beating Trump if they wanted Trump to win?

The answer lies with the Woody Allen line,"when you tell the truth all the time you never have to remember anything". In the Democrats and Washington Post's haste to create fodder and  lies to try to convince Trump electors that the Russians were behind his victory with a non-existant CIA "conclusion" that Russia wanted Trump to win, ,Democrats and their allies forgot that the DNC hacks, supposedly also by Russia,were all to the benefit of Bernie Sanders, the stronger candidate most likely to beat Trump.

That fact exposes the dishonesty, absurdity of Democrats and the news media trying to push the story that the Russians wanted Trump. A story for which the Washington Post provides no corroboration because there isnt any, only a politically motivated "official" planting a story for which they offered no evidence and politically motivated reporters and editors at the Washington Post and New York Times willing to publish fake news.  Its sole purpose was to to try and delegitimize or undo the election.The irony of course is that Democrats and the media were trying to do exactly what they accuse the Russians of doing. Interfere with the election.

And if it doesnt do a thing to change the outcome of the election which it almost surely wont, it gives Democrats and Clinton supporters one more excuse as to why they lost. First it was Sanders damaging Clinton, then Sanders voters, then Comey, then the need for recounts, then lies about hacking voting machines, then that the Electoral College is outmoded (they didnt complain in 1992 when Bill Clinton won the presidency and 270 electoral votes with only 43% of the popular vote)  and a claim Clinton won the popular vote when she didnt, she won a plurality head to head with Trump with the majority of the country voting against her, 52-48. And to be clear, almost all of her 2 million+ vote plurality coming from her margin of victory in one state -- New York.  Now its the Russians who "interfered" with the election and wanted Trump. 

Even if the Russians were behind the hack ,which Clapper says is "tenuous" the emails didnt "interfere" with the election. They exposed truths and facts about Clinton, the Democratic party and news media they didnt like.The emails were real and authentic. They exposed Clinton as being two faced on many issues especially when it came to economic issues, telling Wall Street executives one thing in private and saying something else to voters. That no doubt didnt go down well with many working class voters and only re-enforced the same problem Clinton has had with voters from the beginning: people dont trust her. That is supposed to be Russians fault? 

Democrats accusing Russians of "interfering with the election" by exposing truths they didnt want the public to see is like a man accusing a burglar who breaks into his house, discovers him beating his wife and reporting it to the police as "interfering" in their marriage. The burglar had no business being there but what he reported mattered more. You can deal with the burglar later but it doesn't change or lessen what he saw.

What Democrats still refuse to admit is that if the Wikileaks emails had any influence it was because of the content of the emails and what they exposed, not who exposed it.

No one has ever claimed the emails were fake or fabricated or doctored (except Donna Brazile who was proved to be lying about that too) or anything but authentic so to try and deflect from the content to who did the exposing is absurd and excuse making.

It also ignores that Clinton had a 59% disapproval rating in January of 2016 before a single vote was cast and was considered "untrustworthy" by 65%  of Americans in almost every poll. Clinton had the worst unfavorable ratings of any presidential candidate in history. Exposing Clinton campaign and DNC emails exposed their and news media attempts at rigging the election, successful when it came to the nominating process. But it didnt  cause Clinton to publicly lie about her private server being "approved" for two years or cause her to commit multiple violations of State Dept rules on handling protected information. Or the spike in Obamacare healthcare premiums or caused Obama to sell out the public option to the insurance companies in the first place which led to Democrats getting wiped out in the 2010 elections.

Foreign hacking into the U.S. whether its Russia, China or North Korea is a serious issue especially because of its potential to cause damage in many areas, as a threat to the power grid, China stealing intellectual property from U.S. corporations, even a threat to the water system.  But for Democrats to  continue to try to use the exposure of their dishonesty  in their hacked emails as an excuse as to why they lost shows they dont want to face why they lost. 

Putin is not stupid. The CIA is not stupid. And their behavioral analysts are not stupid. But politically motivated, dishonest political "officials" and dishonest journalists with an agenda almost always are. That is what produced the Washington Post story, repeated by the New York Times and Democrats that the Russian hack was because they wanted Trump. And hope they could get away with it. So far they haven't.

ADDENDUM: At a press conference today (12/15) John Kerry when asked about the Post article refused to endorse it or give it any credibility adding, " I dont take seriously articles that quote 'anonymous officials".

ADDENDUM#2: Attorney General Lorretta Lynch released this statement: "There is no technical evidence to prove Russia was behind the hacks". 

ADDENDUM#3: The unclassified report on hacking just released confirms the falsity and dishonest political spin of the Post story. The report clearly stated that hacking DNC emails which exposed lies,deceit, fraud and rigging on the part of Clinton, the DNC,  Debby Wasserman-Schultz and collusion with dishonest media organizations, was to denigrate and undermine Hillary Clinton (with the truth, by the way) which explains the release of the DNC emails during the Democratic primaries which did in fact undermine and hurt Clinton but were all to Bernie Sanders benefit, not Trump's. 

Based on the report Putin would have been just as happy for Sanders to have beaten Clinton for the nomination. The goal was to undermine Clinton not to benefit an opponent. Which is a long way from saying Putin did it because he wanted Trump to win. That was false. It was an attack on Clinton  that started with the primaries, not to help Trump.

Further, the report says their intelligence shows that Putin believed Clinton would beat Trump in the general election and hoped that what the hacked Podesta emails revealed about Clinton and her credibility (or lack of) would undermine her presidency.

Nowhere  do the 17 intelligence agencies suggest that anything was done to intentionally help Donald Trump, making the Post story as dishonest and as much political spin and fodder to try and undermine Trump as much as Putin wanted to undermine Clinton, just as originally asserted.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Hillary Clinton Didn't Win the Popular Vote, She Lost It. Along With Democrats Losing Their Minds.

If Democrats are trying to prove they are not only out of touch with reality, but are stupid on top of everything else they've been doing a good job since election day when they got their heads handed to them for a variety of reasons one of which was predicted here back in June before the DNC rigged the nomination process and handed it to Hillary Clinton.

Many Democrats and, based on their lack of honesty but no lack of stupidity can be called Tea Party Left support groups who both before and after the election have resorted to outright lying, are now making an issue of Hillary Clinton having "won the popular vote by more than 2 million" using it to both lick their wounds and even try to overturn the election i by hoping to pressure electors in states Trump won to betray their voters and elect the Democrats version of Imelda Marcos and Eva Peron. That's the current Democrats idea of democracy.

What makes it even more comical, and quite frankly stupid, is that Hillary Clinton did not win the popular vote, she lost it. And so too it seems, have Democrats lost their minds in making that argument.

Hillary Clinton won, not the popular vote which indicates a majority, ( as in most Americans) but a plurality 48-46.7 versus Trump. She lost the popular vote 52-48 with 52% of the country voting against her for president.  That's not winning the popular vote that's losing it.

Maybe not figuring that out is why Democrats lose so many elections people think they should have won. In 2010 they couldnt figure out the majority of Americans wanted and expected the public healthcare option as the centerpiece of healthcare reform and when Democrats did nothing to stop Obama from dropping it in a  sell out to the health insurance lobby, they seemed befuddled when betrayed Democratic voters destroyed them in the 2010 elections, something they are still paying for.

The simple fact is in 2016 neither candidate won the popular vote, just like in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected president with the requisite 270 electoral votes but only had 43% of the vote. Democrats didnt complain. And neither Democrats, nor anyone else suggested we had to get rid of the Electoral College. This time around Clinton won 48% of the vote, Trump 46.7%.  The electoral vote went to Trump 304-227 after 5 electors refused to vote for Clinton and 2 didnt vote for Trump.

The " popular vote" argument being used by disgruntled Democrats and their Tea Party Left groups is based on Clinton's 2.5 million vote advantage over Trump in the raw vote. But guess what? That is equal to Clinton's margin of victory in New York state alone, a state neither Clinton nor Trump even bothered to campaign in because it was a foregone conclusion New York's 29 electoral votes would to go Clinton and everyone knew it wouldn't matter if Clinton won New York, or any candidate won any other state by 2 votes or 2 million whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets their electoral votes. Thats how we have elected presidents since 1789. And Trump won the popular vote in many more states with more electoral votes than Clinton.

Clinton's victory in New York state by almost 2.5 million votes is exactly why Hamilton and the Founders created the Electoral College to prevent a candidate trying to appeal to only the most populous states to be elected president while the other states have no voice. 

Many Clinton supporters trying to use Hamilton as a basis for their protests ignore what Hamilton said the Electoral College was created to prevent in the first place: to prevent "those who are well versed in the little arts of popularity" from becoming president.

That Clinton won the two most populous states in the country by a combined 5 million votes, and the two states with the most electoral votes and still lost the electoral vote in a landslide  underscores how badly she was beaten in the rest of the country and at the same time  shows the genius of the Founders in creating the Electoral College, wanting specifically to prevent a situation where a large margin of victory in one or two high population states can skew the election results for the  rest of the country in deciding the presidency. 

What is also being ignored is that Trump never set foot in New York or California or Massachusetts to campaign, and neither did Clinton since they are all states that traditionally go Democratic and was a foregone conclusion Clinton would win. No one was trying to win the most votes, just the most votes in the most states. Thats what Trump did. And Clinton didnt but both were trying to do. Now that Clinton failed, what can only be called  adolescent sore losers want to change the rules or even dumber, try to claim the rules are now unfair having no problem benefitting from them in 1992.

 The claim of having won the popular vote also exposes an almost comical hypocrisy by Clinton and Democratic supporters by insisting on recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA where Trump's victories in those states by 1% is considered so close,so thin,so small, it justifies state-wide recounts but Clinton's 1.3-1.7% raw vote lead (depending on what web site you read) is portrayed as being so big that Democrats want to dump the Electoral College or pressure electors to betray their voters in the states Trump won. That is not just unethical hypocrisy (something exposed en masse about the Democratic party in those emails) but its stupidity

Which shows Democrats still dont understand the election because even after losing both the electoral college in a landslide and the national popular vote, and Clinton's slim raw vote plurality attributable to one state, they are advocating the disenfranchisement of the very people they needed to win and instead want to do what the Founders specifically wanted to prevent in order to fraudulently get their way -- have  one, or two or three high population states deciding the presidency on a raw vote and denying the voices of anyone else.

Donald Trump was elected president because he won the popular vote in many, many, more states than Hillary Clinton which accounts for his landslide win in the Electoral College 306-232  Which is exactly what the Founders intended  by requiring a president to win 270 electoral votes. Not 232 with a big margin of victory in one or two highly populated states.

And so it is even with Michael Moore, also touting the need for the raw vote to decide the presidency, advocating that voices and votes in places like Michigan and Ohio count for nothing and New York, California and Massachusetts should decide the presidency and to hell with everyone else.

Clinton,like Trump concentrated her efforts and money in states that were not forgone conclusions and were needed to win the presidency,those so called "battleground"states and Clinton lost every one of them. Every one. Michigan,Wisconsin,Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Which included states that traditionally went Democratic. And now Democrats and their support groups like MoveOn, DFA and ThinkProgress now want to say those states shouldnt matter.

Clinton lost them all despite raising and spending $1.1 billion in campaign fundraising compared to Trump having spent $100 million.  Which has to make Democrats complaining about Trump being a billionaire and condemning big money donors in politics have egg on their faces when it was Clinton who was the darling of big money donors and spent more than any candidate in history. 

With Clinton spending $1 billion and losing and Trump spending 1/10th of that and winning, it might be a sign that might bode well for  taxpayers and not having their money wasted by Washington and what Trump may do for the economy. Clinton also had 500 campaign offices around the country  expressly to win the electoral vote that Democrats now want to invalidate, Trump had 200 campaign offices. 

But Democrats like Barabara Boxer and Elizabeth Warren and their in the tank ethically challenged journalists at CNN, MSNBC, New York Times or Washington Post,try to make the intellectually and politically bankrupt argument that for all intents and purposes Clinton's 2 million vote margin of victory in New York state alone is supposed to mean something nationally and that Clinton deserves to be president. She doesn't. 

There are 5000 counties in the US. Clinton won 300,Trump 4700. Clinton was thumped in the Electoral College 227-304. Instead of blaming themselves by going along with Obama and  his sell outs or trying to cover them up which Clinton not only defended but promised to continue like Obamacare which was a Democratic party sell out of the promised government run public option, instead of looking to themselves, their compromises, broken promises and the dirty politics they tried to play, they want to rewrite the rules or blame them for their losses.

 And they wonder why they lost.

 The "popular vote" crowd tries to argue that "the will of the people" in New York state or California, should be what decided the presidency for everyone else in 2016 even though the "will of the people" in far more states than Clinton won rejected her.

With that kind of idea of democracy Democrats might consider changing their name. Either that or see if its possible to live up to the name they already have.