ZeroHedge.com<\/p>\n
Submited by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n The scapegoating of Russia is now so widespread, Dirty Wars\u00a0<\/em>author and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill took to The Intercept<\/em><\/a> to call the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on its bluff.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the article, \u201cObama Must Declassify Evidence Of Russian Hacking,\u201d Scahill and Jon Schwartz called out U.S. intelligence agencies for their record of deceit, asserting that the American people are not going to simply \u201ctake their word for it<\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cU.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly demonstrated that they regularly both lie and get things horribly wrong<\/em>,\u201d<\/strong> the article argues<\/a>. But when it comes to the CIA\u2019s case against Russia\u2019s alleged interference with the latest U.S. presidential elections, it\u2019s impossible to claim the hearsay is based on facts if evidence is not made available to support the agency\u2019s claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nevertheless, Scahill and Schwartz argue<\/a>, it\u2019s possible that Russia may have pulled some strings. But even if the Kremlin had its reasons and acted on them, America is the country with the long history of election meddling<\/a> \u2014 not Russia.<\/p>\n Take Hillary Clinton\u2019s comments on the Palestinian elections, for instance. A leaked audio recording from 2006 revealed then-senator Clinton advocated<\/a>\u00a0doing \u201csomething to determine who was going to win<\/em>\u201d in Palestine\u2019s elections.<\/strong> And yet here she is, hoping to use the \u201cRussia did it\u201d talking point to give censorship a boost<\/a>. The CIA has its own history<\/a> of meddling in foreign elections.<\/p>\n In order to give Barack Obama\u2019s administration that extra push to release any \u201cproof\u201d the CIA has that the 2016 U.S. elections were \u201crigged,\u201d the Intercept<\/em>\u2019s duo encouraged feds or whistleblowers to use the publication\u2019s secure drop\u00a0link<\/a>, where a \u201cpatriotic whistleblower\u201d within the U.S. intelligence community may drop the leak that proves Russia is behind President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s win. \u201c[W]e will verify its legitimacy and publish it<\/em>,\u201d they added<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n This response seems fitting. After all, assertions are not evidence<\/strong>, and major publications like the Washington Post<\/em> have been basing their Russia-related reports using nothing but assumptions.<\/p>\n Using an anonymous source<\/a>, for instance, the WaPo<\/em> reported that \u201c[U.S. intelligence] agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of<\/em>\u00a0hacked emails<\/em><\/a> from the Democratic National Committee and others<\/em>.\u201d But Reuters has since reported<\/a>\u00a0that \u201c[the] overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election<\/em>.\u201d This means the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) \u201chas not endorsed [the CIA\u2019s] assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Caitlin Johnstone put it best in an article<\/a> for Newslogue<\/em>:<\/p>\n Unless proof is produced either by the CIA or a whistleblower, partisan voices crying wolf in Washington and in the media will continue to run on empty, feeding their base with nothing but \u201cfake news.\u201d<\/strong> But wasn\u2019t that what we were told to unite over<\/a> so we could \u201cfight\u201d it effectively? Here\u2019s your chance, Mr. President.<\/p>\n\n
\n