CIA: WaPo Linking Russian Government to Trump & Election Hacking Is “Outright Lie”

Excerpts

The Washington Post’s story, however, contained no CIA sources and in fact, no credible U.S. intelligence agency sources whatsoever.

Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence.

McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post. CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.

Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.

Sounds a lot more realistic then all these grand claims they made while showing no evidence at all for anything and the comments about Mcain are simply spot on.

Morris has chronicled the decline of the mainstream media, especially the Washington Post, for 30 years as a professor and journalist and is currently working on a new book about corruption in undergraduate higher education.

Morris said the Washington Post’s latest foray into make-believe journalism with the CIA Russian story had several glaring inconsistencies that are often hallmarks of fabricated, fake news, including:

Story debates itself. Certain parts of the story directly contradict other so-called facts of the same story. The reader is rendered bewildered; the narrative’s “facts” prove untrustworthy.
Haphazard construction. The story’s sloppy foundations and reporting were likely the result of it being constructed on a rush basis or under pressure from editors or the publisher.
Weak sourcing. The story fails to nail down a true link between what the Post claims and DIRECT confirmation from CIA sources.
“There are no sources with direct knowledge, it’s just all hearsay,” Morris said. “Who cares what some partisan Senators or lawmakers say they were told. The Post needs real sources on this. Without CIA sources, this story wouldn’t even make it out of my classroom alive.

“The editors should be fired. If you’re covering national security as a reporter for the Post or New York Times, LA Times, and don’t have CIA sources at your fingertips, find another job.”

Morris is far from alone when questioning the Washington Post’s credibility on its concocted narrative of the flimsy CIA-Russian allegations story.

truepundit.com...


Mainstream media has lost its grip on reality a long long time ago and together with them their viewers which of course was exactly the intention but just like everything else it must come to a end at some point and that point is definitely now. This whole thing was just a final spaz and rushed together in a panick there is nothing, the FBI knows it, the CIA knows it and the NSA knows it now only the Hufpo and friends still need need to catch up to it all.

Fake news definitely exist, it comes from the people that coined this new buzzword, they would of course know best when it comes to fake news..

a reply to: everyone

It was a "secret briefing" and any source from the CIA would naturally be denounced.



This proves nothing, as it would be in the CIA's best interest to keep a lid on this until they've got their ducks squarely in a row.

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: everyone

It was a "secret briefing" and any source from the CIA would naturally be denounced.

This proves nothing, as it would be in the CIA's best interest to keep a lid on this until they've got their ducks squarely in a row.

So, WaPo (read Whacko) gets "secret briefings" from the CIA?
You rate a "Wizard's First Rule" with that one....

***SNIP*** If the Russians somehow tampered with the presidential election results then how/why on November 8th did republicans also win majorities nationwide, both at local and state levels, as well as the House and Senate? Did the Russians hack those results too?

a reply to: everyone

This is one example of many "fake" news stories from the mainstream media. I am looking forward to them losing more and more influence with every passing day. Let's hope the Washington Compost breaks down.

a reply to: Gothmog

You apparently didn't read the original article...

The CIA officials gave a secret briefing to members of congress, and a CIA source with knowledge about that briefing talked to the Washington Post.

A lot of conflicting reports from the CIA, by which I mean there's someone publishing ridiculous anti-Russian propaganda and someone publishing the truth at the same time.

Sounds like a power struggle is going on.

originally posted by: Ohanka
A lot of conflicting reports from the CIA, by which I mean there's someone publishing ridiculous anti-Russian propaganda and someone publishing the truth at the same time.

Sounds like a power struggle is going on.

Anti-Russian propaganda?

You mean, Pro-American truth?

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: everyone

It was a "secret briefing" and any source from the CIA would naturally be denounced.

This proves nothing, as it would be in the CIA's best interest to keep a lid on this until they've got their ducks squarely in a row.

This was Obama before Trump won:

But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even — you could even rig America’s elections, in part, because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.

There is no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time. And so I’d invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes.

OBAMA: And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.

And look at what he is saying now that trump won (something they for some reason were sure of that it would not happen)

All of a sudden it is very possible and realistic that the election can be rigged. Now, that is a full 180 right there, now that trump won. I thought it has never possible and that it would not ever happen in this time ? Or so that's what Obama himself said just recently before Trump won.

He was also sure that Hilary would accept her defeat "graciously" if she were to lose (Again of course he was for some reason 100% sure she would win) and offer Trump her concession speech without issue.

That also did not happen. Instead she send out Pedosta to tell her supporters to go home and she made no appearance and delivered no speech. Because she never bothered to make a concession speech because together with Obama they were so extremely sure that she would win.

Seems legit.

a reply to: everyone

To you have a link to the original Washington Post article in question? Thanks....

Personally I look forward to warm relations with the Russians.

I'd like to buy a decent Saiga or the new AK-12 from a reputable importer. Maybe we can get Kalashnikov Concern to open an actual factory in the states and employ American workers making excellent rifles.

A guy can dream right?

It's amazing to me how the democrats spent much of the last few months of the campaign berating Trump for suggesting the election was rigged, only to turn around and lie about Russians rigging our election when Trump won.

How pathetic.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government. Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bull#”, 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.

Source

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: Gothmog

You apparently didn't read the original article...

The CIA officials gave a secret briefing to members of congress, and a CIA source with knowledge about that briefing talked to the Washington Post.

and a CIA source with knowledge about that briefing talked to the Washington Post.

Really ? A "CIA Sorce" spoke to Whacko about a "secret" CIA get together.
No one mentioned the source ?
Of course not. They would be on their way to a Fed Pen by now
Yeah , very freakin believable

i have no proof that russia hacked into our election process or whatever but they definitely openly campaigned for trump and fear mongered the american public that if hilary won there would be world war 3 between us and russia etc etc i also find it hilarious that some of you that were quick to bash the obama administration for trying to better relations with cuba and iran are the same ones praising trumps willingness to cozy up to the russians.

a reply to: everyone

Funny how most of these fake articles lack any kind of meat whatsoever. People lap it up like it's hard core truth. It's Ridiculous.

a reply to: everyone

Oh, oh, ... that must mean the Washington Post reporting was .... FAKE NEWS !!!!

a reply to: everyone

If any one followed the actually information in regards to this Russian intervention this is no surprise. Because if they had proof it was Russia and if they did they would have shown it already this Russia bs has been going on for months and months now and is only brought back up when the msm or current government are in a sht Storm for what ever reason at the time.

Any one who believes it, hasn't been taking in the facts and only listening to so called "experts" or msm pundits who are only saying what they are being told to say more lies and fake news coming from the ones who complain about fake news.

P.s 2 minutes before seeing this thread on australian tv the show called the project said the cia confirmed it was Russia and then 30 seconds later said while asking a question "if we assume it was Russia" lol its confirmed but they still have to assume? Uh the msm are the most bs most fake news going around for the last 60 years.

This issue certainly needs more investigation and evidence not just an anonymous source in an article claims such and such.

Some media seem to be running with it like it's known fact which is a bit like fake news, get a rumour and say it's true and start talking it up.

A bit strange how during the campaign the dems and media are like no it's not rigged don't be silly now, they lose and they are all russia hacked this and that it's rigged. Timing is suspect.

Could be true could be an attemp to undermine the new pres admin with dirty tricks, and politics and media certainly are no strangers to lies and manipulation.

Maybe Bezos can explain why and how WaPo is colluding with the CIA at his Trump Tower tech summit.

How funny. TruePundit is countering WaPo's claim using unnamed CIA sources with unnamed CIA sources of their own.

Well, there is one bright spot here. At least TruePundit is claiming that the whole pizzagate deal is wild conspiracy and part of fake news, and they don't want to be associated with it.