Now CIA vets are warning against ‘rush to judgment’ on potential Russian hacking

CIA veterans say the public shouldn’t rush to judgment that Russia intervened to get Donald Trump elected president.

A secret CIA meeting concluded that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, an anonymous source told the Washington Post.

‘Total respect!’ Troops show their love for Trump at Army-Navy game; check out the video, photos

The source did not provide details backing up the alleged CIA conclusion, but anti-Trumpers have cited the WaPo story to delegitimize the billionaire’s presidency.

Former top CIA agents urged caution against jumping to conclusions. Nada Bakos, a former senior CIA counterterrorism officer, told Newsweek:

I am not saying that I don’t think Russia did this. My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.

Another former senior CIA agent who spoke on condition of anonymity is skeptical of reports that the CIA knows for sure that Russia had waged a secret hacking campaign to tip the scales in Trump’s favor. “[This is] something that has obviously been politicized,” he noted.

Aside from the fact that there’s NO WAY to be 100% certain the Kremlin had intervened in the election, the U.S. would need a mole inside the Russian government with close ties to Vladimir Putin to accurately impute motive.

The former CIA bigwig said you have to make a lot of assumptions before drawing such a conclusion. He explained:

Let’s assume the agency was able to pinpoint Russian hackers as those responsible for stealing the emails, and also let’s assume those Russian hackers were working for Russian intelligence. OK, then let’s assume there is solid proof that Russian intelligence directed hackers passed the information to WikiLeaks/Assange.

Even if all that is true, how would the CIA determine the Russian motivation for passing the information? That would presumably require a human agent behind the curtain with certain knowledge of Putin’s thinking and intentions.”

top FBI counterintelligence official also said the evidence supporting the CIA’s conclusion is “ambiguous” and “fuzzy.”

If there were credible evidence that Russia had interfered with the actual vote COUNT, that would be cause for alarm. But in this case, Hillary Clinton shills aren’t even saying that — because they can’t.

They’re saying that Russia “intervened” by releasing embarrassing internal emails via Wikileaks that made Clinton and her aides look ridiculous, hypocritical and disdainful of American voters.

hillary-groped-me-hillarys-emails-wikileaksMost people on social media agree that if Russia had intervened in a U.S. election, that is unacceptable.

However, others dismissed the latest Washington Post report as yet another “fake news” story pushed by mainstream media to blame Hillary’s loss on anything but her horrible, scandal-plagued candidacy.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/808171844356349952

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/808140874005827584

https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/807678497158287360

‘I think it’s ridiculous’: Trump’s not buying Russia’s interference in the election, and he’s not budging

Trump responded to the Russian hacking rumors by saying liberal mainstream media had pushed fake news stories in the past, so they’re hardly credible sources now.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump noted.

Sorry Hillary, even if Russia hacked, here’s why you aren’t getting a ‘do-over’

Samantha Chang

Samantha Chang is a financial editor who writes about politics at BizPac Review, about business at CCN, and general news at HVY. She is a law school graduate and an alum of the University of Pennsylvania. You can find her on Twitter at Samantha_Chang.
Samantha Chang

Comments

Latest Articles