Posted by Michael Kennedy on December 12th, 2016 (All posts by Michael Kennedy)
Many of us were pleased to see the surprise results of the November 8 election. Democrats were distraught.
The Democrats seem to be hung up on Kubler Ross’s first stage of mourning.
Anger and disbelief are giving way to what is starting to look like an insurrection.
Clinton camp supports intel briefing ahead of Electoral College vote
The Hillary Clinton campaign is supporting calls by some members of the Electoral College for an intelligence briefing on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties with Russia ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.
Clinton’s top political adviser John Podesta released a statement on Monday in support of the effort, Politico reported.
“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”
“Each day that month, our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump,” Podesta continued. “Despite our protestations, this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in the campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”
There is, as yet, no evidence of Russian interference. “Hacking” has been blamed for many of the disclosures of DNC e-mails and Hillary secrets, such as undermining the Bernie Sanders campaign. They appear to be still stuck in the “denial” stage.
Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump is an unmitigated disaster for Democrats, who want to ensure nothing like it happens again. But Clinton’s popular-vote lead over Trump is so large that it complicates the question of how to recalibrate for future elections.
Clinton led Trump by almost 3 million votes as of Sunday, according to a Cook Political Report tracker, with some final results still to be tabulated. More than 128 million votes were cast for the two main candidates nationwide, and Trump emerged as the victor by winning three Rust Belt states by margins of roughly 11,000 (Michigan), 23,000 (Wisconsin) and 44,000 (Pennsylvania).
Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist who managed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, pointed out that, amid all the Democratic remorse and recrimination following the election, very small differences in those three states would have led to Republicans questioning their future, not Democrats.
Yes, it was close in several states that Hillary expected to carry. But SHE DIDN’T !
California supplied the difference in the popular vote, many of those probably from illegal alien voters.
the Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA now believes Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. The story clearly has some distance left to run.
The WaPo story has NO proof or even evidence that this happened. The NY Times is even more hysterical, if possible.
Ann Althouse has a blog post on her reading of the story. Her conclusion ?
Squirreled away at the end of the article is the admission that people at the FBI are skeptical about the conclusion. An unnamed “senior American law enforcement official” told the NYT that “the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions” and that “any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media.” The NYT observes that the FBI holds itself to “higher standards of proof,” since its work is geared toward prosecuting criminal cases in court, but: “The C.I.A. has a broader mandate to develop intelligence assessments.”
The NYT story also has no evidence, Just speculation by a CIA that has already been compromised by politics. The CIA has been shown to participate in a fake news story about Benghazi.
CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.
Rice, who was considered a likely nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, has been attacked by Republican lawmakers for saying on “Face the Nation” (video) on Sept. 16 that all indications were the attack “began spontaneously” – suggesting it likely sprang from a protest against an anti-Muslim video found on the Internet. Protests of that nature had been seen in other Muslim nations in the days and weeks before the Benghazi attack.
The CIA’s talking points read as follows:
“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.”
This information has subsequently been shown to be not only false but was not believed by Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State at the time of the attack. She e–mailed her daughter that the attack was terrorism and not a “demonstration gone awry.”
“At the time I e-mailed with my daughter, a terrorist group had taken credit for the attacks on our facility in Benghazi. Within 16, 18 hours, they rescinded taking credit. They did it all on social media. And the video did play a role,” Clinton insisted.
“We have captured one of the lead terrorists, and he admits it was both a terrorist attack and it was influenced by the video. This was fog of war. This was complicated. The most effective, comprehensive reports and studies demonstrate that.”
The whole “video” story has been repeatedly shown to be a lie to protect Obama’s coming 2012 election chances.
Now, we have another use of the CIA, which the FBI seems not to be cooperating with, to mislead the American people in order to discredit the newly elected president. This is extremely dangerous.
The fake news panic of 2016 is a variation on a long-held liberal notion that people are too easily manipulated by conservatives. This is one of the reasons Democrats are interested in empowering the state to ban political speech by overturning Citizens United or passing a Fairness Doctrines or handing control of the Internet to the government. Conspiracy theories are prevalent in American political life.
Feeding such conspiracy theories by a political party in an attempt to reverse an election is despicable.
After all,it was President Obama who told us in 2012 that we had nothing to fear from the Russians. He also was the one who told the Russian president that “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.”