Admittedly The Guardian is an unusual source for me, but on Saturday they posted an article that caught my attention.
This week we have been bombarded with claims that Russia gave the Presidential Election to Trump by hacking the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s emails. We are supposed to believe that the Russians would prefer a Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton presidency. I don’t think so. Hillary Clinton would be a continuation of President Barack Obama. We seem to have forgotten that on March 26, 2012, major news sources reported that President Obama had told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. The Russians have done what they wanted during Obama’s Presidency, why wouldn’t they expect more of the same under Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump, however, is not for sale and has learned a few things in his years as a successful businessman. The basic premise that the Russians would support Trump as President is not logical.
The article in The Guardian reports:
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”
On Friday the White House announced that Obama had ordered intelligence officials to conduct a broad review of election-season cyber-attacks, including the email hacks, to report before he leaves office on 20 January.
The review, led by intelligence agencies, will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” during the campaign season, the White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. It would look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the US government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.
You could fertilize your garden with the information coming out of the mainstream media and the White House right now. This is a bunch of people who still do not understand why they lost the election who are doing everything they can to try to dilute the power of the incoming administration. The people who have done well ‘in the swamp’ that is Washington do not want someone coming into office who will drain the swamp. That is what Donald Trump will do. The current kerfuffle is the perfect example of fake news. It is an attempt to mislead the public and diminish the effectiveness of the incoming administration. Unfortunately I think we can expect much more of the same.