President Obama och CIA har engagerat sig för att få valet av Donald Trump underkänt. Ursprungligen var detta ett beklagligt initiativ av De Grönas presidentkandidat Jill Stein.

DN skrev USA-valet: CIA: Ryssland hjälpte Trump

Etablerade media som New York Times och Washington deltar i att sprida uppfattningen att det var Ryssland som hackade Hillary Clintons e-postserver och sedan skickade materialet vidare till Wikileaks, som publicerade det. Särskilt ska detta ha gällt e-mail gällande Podesta, med påstådda resor av paret Clinton till sexäventyr med minderåriga om jag fattat rätt. PodestaJag har inte brytt mig om att skriva om detta och tänker inte heller göra det nu. Offentliggörandet av detta ska ha bidragit till Clintons valnederlag menar man, och det ska ha varit i Rysslands intresse.

Inga bevis för rysk inblandning har presenterats, vare sig av CIA eller någon annan. Trots detta har media i USA och Sverige presenterat påståendet som en sanning.

Förre britiske ambassadören Craig Murray skriver på sin blogg att påståendena från CIA är en grov lögn. Han inte bara vet vem som är källan – han har dessutom träffat hen, och hen är inte rysk. Craig Murrays blogg

Craig Murray skriver bland annat ”I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.”

”As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.”

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness?

Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Murray skriver också att CIA:s påståenden saknar trovärdighet, för om de kände till källan skulle de ha krävt att hen utlämnas, men det har CIA inte gjort, som Pål Steigan skriver. I Storbritannien hade The Guardian under tre timmar en artikel på framsidan på sin nättidning som sa sanningen, men den togs bort. Pål Steigan 12/12

Där stod bland annat ”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 “bullshit”, 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.”

Clinton-kampanjen har lagt press på elektorerna för att inte rösta på Trump på det sätt de ska göra 19/12. En formell process har startats. Om den lyckas får Obama fortsätta som president ännu en tid.
Maktkampen i USA fortsätter och blir alltmer intensiv.

Också Newsvoice har publicerat en artikel i denna fråga där Stefan Molyneux analyserar om ryssarna hackade det amerikanska valet och varnar för kommande SanningsministeriumNewsvoice

Patrick Martin skriver också på Globalresearch att den här historien signalerar en strid bland USA:s styrande. The campaign was sparked by back-to-back articles in the Washington and the New York Times, claiming that a secret new CIA assessment had determined that the Russian government had tried to help Trump win the presidency. This is the alleged motivation behind the hacking of emails from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which were then supplied to WikiLeaks for public release.

The New York Times presented as proof of alleged Russian favoring of Trump the claim that hackers had also penetrated the Republican National Committee but had not released Republican emails because the goal was to discredit Clinton and not Trump. This report was flatly denied by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who has been named chief of staff for the incoming Trump White House.

The intensity of the divisions with the US ruling elite was demonstrated in the Trump transition team’s initial response to the reported CIA assessment, which noted sarcastically, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

Glenn Greenwald noted in The Intercept:

“There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence—still—can be publicly seen, reviewed, or discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed.”

Sannolikt är Martins bedömning korrekt ”It is now clear, however, that underlying the public conflict over the hacking allegations is a ferocious struggle over foreign policy. Trump speaks for a faction within the ruling class that wants to focus US policy on a more aggressive military, economic and diplomatic offensive against China. The Democrats and leading media outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post speak for a faction of the intelligence establishment and the military that is opposed to any shift away from the aggressive and confrontational posture toward Russia.”
Det är möjligt att Trumps uttalande om Taiwan är ett inslag i denna politik. Liksom valet av utrikesminister. Enligt nyheterna råder oro att detta ska leda till förbättrade relationer till Ryssland. Detta är helt sjukt. Förbättrade relationer mellan USA och Ryssland och minskad krigsrisk är bra för hela världen, också för Sverige även om Peter Hultqvist kanske inte fattar det.

i Andra om: president, Hillary Clinton, Wikileaks, Podesta, Ryssland,e-mail, imperialism, krig, USA, Politik, Donald Trump, massmedia, val, utrikespolitik Wikileaks, demokrati,terrorism, Syrien

Några andra artiklar om Hillary Clinton.
Samma pengar finansierar ISIS, Clinton och Sveriges vapenexport
Hillary Clinton sålde vapen till ISIS
Clintons och USA:s plundring av Haiti
USA:s militäre ÖB varnar: Hillary Clintons Syrienpolitik innebär världskrig
Svenska mutorna kan bidra till att knäcka Hillary
Hillary Clinton: Erfaren hök, Wall Street-favorit och farlig lögnerska
Donald Trump bättre kandidat än Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton drottningen av kaos
Hillary Clinton väljer Wall Street-hök som vicepresident
Hillary Clinton och Donald Trump snackas vid
Svenska media gullar med höken Clinton
Storekonomen Jeffrey Sachs: Clinton är en neokonservativ hök
Socialistiske Bernie Sanders storseger över kapitalistfavoriten Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton – en feminist?
USA:s nästa president – höken Hillary Clinton?