FBI, CIA NOT ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKING!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
FBI, CIA NOT ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKING! (MAYBE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ABOUT RUSSIA HELPING TRUMP IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED)

Nancy Pelosi's daughter leads electors demanding intel briefing on Russia's ties to Donald Trump!

Click here>  THE FACTS ABOUT THE HACKS, AND WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG?   

Contrary to claims made by Democrats about Russian interference helping President-elect Donald J. Trump, there is no definitive proof that the Kremlin ordered such cyber-attacks. It’s all based on

circumstantial evidence, innuendo, and anonymous sources that are bound by an apparent inter-

agency feud between the CIA and the FBI. On December 10, The Washington Post reported that both agencies were not on the same page, which seemed to have angered Democrats:

Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia “quite” clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.

For the Democrats in the room, the FBI’s response was frustrating — even shocking!

During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA’s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were “direct and bald and unqualified” about Russia’s intentions to help Trump, per one of the officials who attended the House briefing.

The competing messages, per officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

The Post added that the meeting from the FBI briefer reportedly devolved into Democrats trying to corner the briefer on whether Russia had a favorite in this election. It all boiled down to a lack of evidence to definitively say that Russia helped Trump in this election, which is something

President Obama has been quiet on, despite the palace intrigue that has permeated the air waves. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept also tore into the claims that Russia hacked the election to help Trump, slamming Democrats for jumping the gun on the CIA’s incomplete claims as gospel.

Greenwald added that there should be some basic ground rules when it comes to Russia, hacking, and the 2016 election. No one should be making claims, like Democrats have, concerning hacking without evidence (a no-brainer, right?), that CIA reports should be subject to extreme scrutiny since they lie for a living, that people should consider the FBI-CIA feud, and that the last 24-48 hours have been rife with contradictions, which should add to the uncertainty. No one is saying

don’t investigate these claims, but the Left, in their inability to take responsibility for nominating one of the most flawed candidates to ever run for the presidency, have gone gung-ho with these Russians totally hacked the election to help Trump claims that are unsubstantiated at best. Moreover, Greenwald also adds the biases between the two agencies; how the intelligence community was staunchly opposed to Trump, whereas those who were investigating Clinton’s email fiasco at the FBI were hoping she would get prosecuted for not following protocol concerning sensitive material or at least stripping her of her security clearance.

At the same time, it’s also a bit surprising since the Clintons reportedly made even members of the intelligence community nervous due to her penchant to play by a different set of rules—or at least that’s what David Ignatius postulated. Frankly, an unauthorized and unsecure server that was capable of being hacked by foreign actors and most certainly had classified material sent through it (though not classified at the time) is more startling. She skirted protocol; Trump didn’t. Three emails that were sent through Clinton’s server were determined to be classified at the time they were sent and received, but were marked Improperly. Regardless, in the end, Greenwald’s main point is that anonymous sources are not akin to actionable evidence:

Democrats — still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves — immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

…The reasons no rational person should blindly believe anonymous claims of this sort — even if it is pleasing to believe such claims — should be obvious by now.

To begin with, CIA officials are professional, systematic liars; they lie constantly, by design, and with great skill, and have for many decades, as have intelligence officials in other agencies. Many of

those incidents demonstrate, as hurtful as it is to accept, that these agencies even lie when there’s a Democrat overseeing the executive branch.

Beyond that, what makes claims from anonymous sources so especially dubious is that their motives cannot be assessed. Who are the people summarizing these claims to the Washington Post? What motives do they have for skewing the assertions one way or the other? Who are the people inside the intelligence community who fully ratify these assertions and who are the ones who dissent? It’s impossible to answer any of these questions because everyone is masked by the shield of anonymity, which is why reports of this sort demand high levels of skepticism, not blind belief.

The timing of the leaks:

To start with, the timing of these leaks is so striking. Even as Democrats have spent months issuing one hysterical claim after the next about Russian interference, the White House, and Obama specifically, have been very muted about all of this. Perhaps that’s because he did not want to appear partisan or be inflammatory, but perhaps it’s because he does not believe there is sufficient proof to accuse the Russian government; after all, if he really believed the Russians did even half of what Democrats claim, wouldn’t he (as some Democrats have argued) be duty-bound to take aggressive action in retaliation?

It was announced yesterday afternoon that Obama had ordered a full review of hacking allegations: a perfectly sensible step that makes clear that an investigation is needed, and evidence disclosed, before any definitive conclusions can be reached. It

was right on the heels of that announcement that this CIA leak emerged: short-cutting the actual, deliberative investigative process Obama had ordered to lead the public to believe that all the answers were already known and, before the investigation even starts, that Russia was guilty of all charges.

Greenwald also notes how the Democrats’ anti-Russia fetish is coalescing into a new neo-McCarthyite ethos that’s rather annoying, though entertaining at times, where any mention to the contrary about the Left's claims concerning Russia's intentions during the 2016 election is taken as support for Russia and Putin:

…here’s how I defined the McCarthyite atmosphere that Democrats have deliberately cultivated this year:

So, that’s the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2016 election. Those who question, criticize or are perceived to impede Hillary Clinton’s smooth, entitled path to the White House are vilified as stooges, sympathizers and/or agents of Russia: Trump,

WikiLeaks, Sanders, The Intercept, Jill Stein. Other than loyal Clinton supporters, is there anyone left who is not covertly controlled by or in service to The Ruskies?

Concerns over Democrats’ McCarthyism never had anything to do with a desire for an investigation into the source of the DNC and Podesta hacking; everyone favored such investigations. Indeed, accusations that Democrats were behaving in a McCarthyite manner were predicated — and still are — on their disgusting smearing as Kremlin agents anyone who wanted evidence and proof before believing these inflammatory accusations about Russia.

To see the true face of this neo-McCarthyism, watch this amazing interview from this week with Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the party’s leading Russia hawks (he’s quoted in the Post article attacking Obama for not retaliating against Putin). When Schiff is repeatedly asked by the interviewer, Tucker Carlson, for evidence to support his allegation that Putin ordered the hacking of Podesta’s emails, Schiff provides none.
Click here>  SCHIFF VS CARLSON, WHO GETS THE KNOCKOUT! 

What he does instead is accuse Carlson of being a Kremlin stooge
and finally tells him he should put his program on RT. That — which has become very typical Democratic rhetoric — is the vile face of neo-McCarthyism that Democrats have adopted this year.

Admittedly, maybe I jumped the gun to say that there was no proof of a Russia-Trump alliance based solely on anonymous sources; I usually make a note stressing when something is rumor or based on an anonymous source. And I’ve always made sure that such stories have a “stay tuned” mention towards the end. Because often, especially with these stories—we don’t know. But this is different. As you can see, Democrats are so desperate in their attempts to undercut the president-elect and avoid slamming Clinton as a horrible candidate, that they’re using rumor as proof. I’ll be sure to make a note of such sources in future posts because as you can see—this whole thing has gone off the hinges. We have the Huffington Post reporting that this

unsubstantiated claim of Russian interference in our election is the “political equivalent of 9/11.” I’m going to sit back until we get on the record remarks from U.S. officials. Because as Greenwald and the Post noted, we really can’t say for sure that Russia directed such cyber-attacks to help Trump.  ~~By Matt Vespa, a Friend of America!

CLINTON CAMPAIGN WANTS INTEL BRIEFINGS FOR ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEMBERS, BUT IT NOW APPEARS THAT WON’T BE HAPPENING, OR WILL IT?

The House Intelligence Committee has asked four intelligence agencies for a briefing Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, The Hill has learned.

The Washington Post reported that the CIA believed hacks into the Democratic National Committee and other political organizations were an explicit attempt by the Russian government to help Donald Trump attain the White House — an

assessment the FBI reportedly did not believe the evidence supported, and I am now hearing that none of the four are going to be showing up, which makes this little ditty appear to be less than factual. Thanks Josh for exposing the exiting President to the Deplorable status that Hillary attributed to Trump Supporters of old, and you continue doing today!

Click here>  JOSH AT HIS BEST, DELIVERING 'FAKE NEWS!'

McConnell Backs Senate Investigations of Russian Hacking!

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has thrown its support behind an effort to provide members of the Electoral College with intelligence briefings on Russian breaches of U.S. political organizations before the College formally votes to elect Donald Trump president next week.

"The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security. Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed," Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta said Monday, responding to a request for briefings by a group of electors.

Podesta's strongly worded statement signals a clear shift in strategy from Clinton and her team, who have until now shown no interest in questioning the legitimacy of last month's election. And it could crack the door to further challenges or give succor to some Democrats' long-shot hope that Trump's election could be upended when the Electoral College convenes December 19.

A large trove of Podesta's emails were released by WikiLeaks late in the campaign, and intelligence officials believe the emails were provided to the organization by the Russians.

Trump defeated Clinton in the general election by an electoral vote margin of 306-232. Since then,

Clinton has pulled ahead of Trump by a popular vote margin of nearly 3 million’ ‘BUT’ the ‘Paid to Report’ Media never tells you about the three million votes in the U.S. presidential election that were cast by illegal aliens, per Greg Phillips of the VoteFraud.org organization.

If true, this would mean that Donald Trump still won the contest despite widespread vote fraud and almost certainly won the popular vote.

“We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens,” tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations, ‘BUT’ I guess there attributing these claims and others of being ‘FAKE NEWS’ and irrelevant even though common sense with 13 million unvetted illegal immigrants and refugees, and the 4 million dead voters still on the voter rolls, that the findings are practically impossible, and not verified, right?   Oh, and don’t forget the video of Obama encouraging illegals to vote with no chance of repercussions!

Click here>  OBAMA'S PLEAS TO ILLEGALS TO VOTE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES! 

Experts say electors' ability to reverse the November 8 results remains virtually impossible, but mainstream Democrats have felt emboldened to raise doubts about the outcome following news this weekend that the CIA formally concluded the Russian government worked covertly not just to disrupt the election, but to help Trump win. Four powerful senators — two Democrats, two Republicans — released a statement calling for a joint probe into Russia's actions.

"We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American. Never in the history of our Republic have we seen such an effort to undermine the bedrock of our democracy. This is not a partisan issue and we are glad to see bipartisan support in the Congress for an investigation into Russia's role," Podesta said in his statement.

Trump and his campaign have vehemently denied any Russian intervention on their behalf, accusing the intelligence agencies he will soon head of being politicized and misinformed. Some allies, including John Bolton, a potential senior Trump State Department nominee, have even

accused the Obama Administration without evidence of hacking the Democratic National Committee and Podesta's personal Gmail account in a "false flag" operation.

Earlier Monday, a group of 10 Electors, including some well-known Democrats head up by Nancy Pelosi's daughter and one Republican, sent an open letter to James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, requesting briefings on alleged Russian meddling in the election.

"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election," their letter reads. "We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States."

The signatories include Christine Pelosi, a California Democratic strategist and daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,

New Hampshire Representative-elect Carol Shea Porter, Washington, D.C. Councilwoman Anita Bonds, along with other respected Democrats, all of whom are members of the Electoral College.

The Democratic signatories were joined by Republican Chris Suprun of Texas, who wrote an op-ed explaining why he won't cast his Electoral College vote for Trump.

The 538 members of the Electoral College will meet next Monday in each state capital to cast the votes to will formally elect Trump president. They are bound to vote for the popular vote winner in

their states, but some so-called "Faithless Electors" have vowed to refuse to cast a ballot for Trump.

Technically, this is the only vote that matters, so some Democrat and Republican critics have prayed that a last-minute intervention by the Electors could prevent Trump from becoming president. Their dreams are highly unlikely to become reality for a host of legal and political reasons, not least because Trump has a wide 74-vote margin. ~~by ALEX SEITZ-WALD, a Friend of America!

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.