The Washington Post’s recent story, which claimed that a “secret” CIA report found evidence Russia interfered in the US election to help Trump, has now been discredited by the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, and multiple CIA sources.
Last Friday, a Washington Post article entitled “Secret CIA Assessment Says Russia was Trying to Help Trump Win White House” cited a “secret” CIA report which allegedly found evidence that Russia interfered in the US election on behalf of President-Elect Donald Trump. However, numerous other agencies in the US intelligence community, including multiple sources within the CIA, have discredited the “secret assessment” in recent days. This past Friday, a senior FBI counterintelligence official met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and told them that the agency did not agree with the CIA’s assertion, calling them “fuzzy” and “ambiguous”, as no concrete proof of the allegations exists. The Washington Post later admitted this, saying that the difference of opinion between their “secret” CIA sources and the FBI is that the FBI “wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something” while the CIA is “more comfortable drawing inferences,” or, in other words, passing off assumptions as facts.
On Monday, Reuters reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) refused to endorse the CIA “secret” assessment “because of a lack of conclusive evidence” proving Moscow’s intent to elevate Trump’s chances in the November election. A senior US official also told Reuters that the CIA’s assessment was based on the conclusion that “judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked.” However, no evidence has even been released proving that Russian entities hacked Democrat and Republican networks as recent events have indicated that the election leaks were likely the work of Democratic Party or Intelligence community insiders.
Furthermore, multiple sources from within the CIA have disputed their own agency’s assessment of the situation. CIA analysts told True Pundit that the report was “an outright lie. There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.” Some of the CIA insiders argued that out-going CIA director John Brennan and his inner circle, “could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence […] without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss” and the neo-liberal establishment.
However, the comments of these dissenting voices in the US intelligence community has done little to stop the Obama White House from treating the claims in the Washington Post article as fact. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest went a step further, arguing that Trump had actively pushed Russia to hack Democrats and Clinton, a grave accusation once again based on assumption – not fact. Earnest argued that because Trump hired a campaign chairman with ties to Russian business and that his national security adviser worked as an adviser to Russia Today (RT), he must have “called on Russia to hack into his opponent. He certainly had a pretty good sense of whose side this activity was coming down on.” Earnest called these accusations “unanimous obvious facts,” despite no evidence and widespread dissent from the US intelligence community.
This latest revelation regarding the Post’s dubious journalism comes just a week after the paper’s editors admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear alternative media as “fake news” by including numerous well-regarded sites in a libelous “black list.” This latest debacle for the paper, which is owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, would normally be enough to tank its little remaining credibility. However, the anti-Russia/anti-Trump narrative it is pushing directly appeals to many of those who voted for Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton as well as the neo-liberal establishment at large, ensuring that many wishful thinkers will continue to read the Washington Post no matter what drivel they decide to publish next.
