President Barack Obama’s Central Intelligence Agency claimed late last week that Russian hackers had interfered in the 2016 presidential election earlier this fall to help install then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump as the nation’s next president.
There was just one huge problem with this uncorroborated theory: The Federal Bureau of Investigation had reached the exact opposite conclusion after completing a far lengthier probe that reportedly lasted months.
“Law enforcement officials (from the FBI) say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government,” The New York Times reported two months ago.
“And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump,” it added.
The latter conclusion was especially pertinent, as it was the CIA’s unproven thesis that Russian hackers were responsible for the corpus of damaging emails that WikiLeaks published during the election season.
“Intelligence agencies (with the CIA) have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman,” The Washington Post reported Friday.
“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” an unnamed senior official told the newspaper. “That’s the consensus view.”
If that’s the consensus, then why did the FBI reach the exact opposite conclusion less than two months prior? It made no sense, especially considering that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has time and time again denied that the hacked emailspublished by his site were obtained from Russian operatives.
On Saturday, The Washington Post itself even published a story about the FBI’s skepticism about Russian involvement to favor Trump.
Moreover, even Michael Tracey, a roving journalist who has written for liberal media outlets such as The Daily Beast and The New Republic, was skeptical of the CIA’s recent claims.
There is no evidence presented in this article. Liberals want everyone to uncritically accept anonymous CIA claims https://t.co/3Lw2vIAwRe
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 10, 2016
“There is no evidence presented in this article,” he tweeted Sunday, linking to the Post piece cited earlier. “Liberals want everyone to uncritically accept anonymous CIA claims.”
Specifically, liberals wanted everyone to accept anonymous CIA claims that directly contradicted claims made by the FBI only months ago.