You may have recently read that President Obama has ordered a review of ‘Russian Hacking’ in the 2016 U.S elections. For those of you in the media that come to this site regularly for your daily news prep, we have a stunning new exclusive:
American Lens has documented proof that Foreign National Intelligence agencies spread propaganda and attempt to influence elections. In other news, the sun will come up again tomorrow.
What the Washington Post Failed to Tell You
It’s time to put your big-kid underwear on America. The Washington Post, still living off the glory days of Woodward and Bernstein’s work, has become a shadow of its formerly credible self.
The Post does not mention how offshore money was wired to Americans United for Change, a PAC directly connected to the Clinton campaign.
Or how bundlers for Hillary were also representatives for multiple foreign governments.
Or how Tony Podesta was a registered foreign agent for Saudi Arabia and was lobbying the Whitehouse.
Or how his brother, John Podesta, was Obama’s Chief Council.
Or that Paul Manafort, Trumps first campaign manager, was hired by Tony Podesta to lobby for a Russian front group. In that case, $12.5 Million has mysteriously disappeared into the Podesta Group, which is now under federal scrutiny for the matter.
Nor is there any mention of Mexico’s attempts to influence the US elections.
The selectively written story by the Washington Post narrates that the Russians tried to influence the U.S. elections. Well, of course they did. That’s just one of the many things that foreign intelligence agencies do.
The article mentions nothing about past transgressions involving foreign governments influencing elections. For example, there is no mention about Charlie Trie and Chinese money that was received by the Bill Clinton campaign in 1998.
No mention of John Huong who funneled millions to the Democratic National Committee, or Johnny Chung who lined Democrat pockets with Chinese intelligence agency money.
Perhaps the most egregious example of Washington Posts’s journalistic myopathy is they don’t mention the well-documented tens of millions in payments to the Clintons from foreign governments, both before her presidential campaign announcement and after, for the express purpose of buying influence.
Words Have Meaning
In the intelligence community what gets asked is what gets answered. If you only focus your questioning to Russian hacking, you will only get answers about Russia hacking.
If Democratic U.S. House and Senate members were truly concerned about the security of our elections, then members on the hill should expand their questions to ask:
“What countries tried to influence our elections and by what means did they do it?”
“What governments (including our own) attempted to hack the elections system in the United States and the state of Georgia?”
“What is the likelihood that the leaked Clinton Campaign and DNC emails came from an insider source?”
The CIA & National Intelligence
Intelligence agencies of the United States are not the political animals many pundits envision them to be. In fact, most of the analysts and collectors of information are more concerned with getting their assessments right more than anything they do.
American Intel members are Republicans and Democrats, Green Party and Libertarians. All of these agents are deeply patriotic and extremely sensitive to the political implications of their work.
They sacrifice great quantities of personal time and weeks and months away from family for our nation because they are professionals. Others have paid the ultimate sacrifice, only to have their efforts squandered by political hacks and bad journalism.
When these people get the assessment correct, which happens more often than not, we rarely take notice. But, when they occasionally get it wrong they take it deeply personal and create new methods and measures to prevent future failures.
Political leaders and pundits have a tendency to alter intelligence assessments to fit a particular narrative. Our Intel officials do not have a crystal ball for predicting the future, and in many cases they cannot positively conclude what happened in the past. That is why the DNI used the term ‘consensus’ – precisely because it was not unanimous.
In the United States, perhaps we should give great praise to a very unbiased profession and scorn to those who adulterate their work as political talking points.
Diverting attention away from unauthorized disclosure of National Secrets by the former Secretary of State is a clever rouse by liberal media outlets. Undermining the credibility of a duly elected President is another.
By undermining the President, Democrats and biased media outlets are attempting to de-legitimize his stunning win. Love him or hate him, Donald J. Trump is America’s next President and nothing the jaundiced media does will change that.