This Is Why The Washington Post CIA Report Is FALSE

The Washington Post and The New York Times have become a breeding ground for ridiculous opinions and fake news, and they do this while they condemn other outlets for their fake news.

When they’re not beating up on President-elect Trump with their hackneyed and preposterous opinions about “fear” being perpetuated across the nation, they’re doing whatever they can to slander Donald Trump, and that includes fake news stories.

You want proof?

The Washington Post ran a story Nov. 24th quoting a secretive research group, with no identities of their experts, as well as saying the Russians infiltrated a number of news sites with “fake news” stories that tilted the election to Mr. Trump.

Other liberal media outlets have slammed the story as weakly sourced and unfair to reputable news organizations.

This is designed by liberals to damage Donald Trump’s image, but no one is buying it except for the simple-minded.

But this new story by the “reputable” Washington Post might take the cake.

The Washington Post recently reported the CIA has “secretly” concluded that Vladimir Putin and his Russian regime were responsible for hacking the Democrats’ emails to help Republican candidate Trump win the election.

The Washington Post bogusly claims the CIA has identified these people with “connections” to the Russian government who supplied the Democrats’ emails to WikiLeaks.

But that is not what the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, told the House Intelligence Committee at an open hearing.

He told Congress that his agencies “don’t have good insight” into a direct link between WikiLeaks and the emails supposedly hacked by a Russian operation from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Keep in mind that Clapper was appointed by President Obama and also resigned his post soon after Donald Trump won the presidency.   If he had good reason, he would throw President-elect Donald Trump under the bus in a hurry.

During the campaign, WikiLeaks discovered a treasure trove in Hillary’s campaign manager John Podesta’s emails, in which calling the emails embarrassing for the Clinton campaign would be a gross understatement.

These emails included anything from the liberal media colluding with the Clinton campaign to put out her message, to the discovery that Hillary Clinton received massive amounts of money for speaking to Wall Street banks for 20 minutes.

Democrats are now on a campaign implying the hacking won the election for Donald Trump and they have pressed the Obama administration for an intensive investigation.

Julian Assange, who founded WikiLeaks, has denied receiving the emails from Russia.

WikiLeaks is a group of hacking experts.  Why would they need Russia?

And now it seems there will be congressional investigations next year to the extent of whether Russia is attempting to influence American elections and policymaking.

This is being ordered by President Obama – that is until Donald Trump takes the oath and finds it to be a waste of time.

Donald Trump told Time Magazine just recently:

“I don’t believe they interfered.  That became a laughing point, not a talking point, a laughing point.

 

Any time I do something, they say, Oh, Russia interfered.

 

It could be Russia.  And it could be China.  And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

Some Republicans believe the Democrats’ drumbeat on a Russian connection is part of an overall campaign to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s upcoming presidency.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California, said:

“Russia had nothing to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton didn’t resonate with the right voters the same way Donald trump did.

 

The idea that Trump’s victory, and thereby voter judgment, was guided by Russia is a slap in the face of the American electorate.  Trump won because he had a winning message and he’s got the backbone to see it through.”

This is clearly a desperate move from The Washington Post to push their liberal agenda on us all.