President-elect Donald Trump tweeted earlier was interesting, if not enlightening question, regarding the huge controversy on the supposed Russian hacking of the U.S. election. He asked: " If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?". Could it be because it is very convenient for President Obama, his Democrat allies and ultimately Hillary Clinton to bring up the Russia hacking and election interference card to soothe their crushed egos from the humiliating election defeat, and throw doubts on the legitimacy of Trump's victory? When all along, they need not look far to another continent, to another powerful foreign country, because the answer is right in the heart of the U.S. soil? America's very own intelligence agents!
Fox News' resident legal and political expert Judge Andrew Napolitano argues that U.S. intelligence agents have far more reason- and benefit to gain- to try to influence how the election can or may turn out. Such plausible theory is still connected to Hillary Clinton's infamous private email server scandal. She has compromised the security of the intelligence agents when she has recklessly exposed their identities and locations through the potentially illegal private server. And through the influence of Obama and the White House, FBI could not do anything but absolve her from her complicity. Hillary going scot-free has further undermined the intelligence community, the agents especially.
As disgruntled and furious they were of what happened and how easily Hillary has gotten away with it, the intelligence agents have the motivation to try to prevent her from winning the election and becoming their next Commander-In-Chief.
Forget the supposed technological sophistication or shrewd, powerful but scary brilliance of Russian hackers, Napolitano asks a very simple question and the corresponding fast and uncomplicated answer. " Who had access to all this material without having to steal any codes? U.S. intelligence agents, who did not want this woman in charge of the federal government?" Napolitano underscores that the intelligence world is subject to political interference.
Napolitano also brings another logical and legitimate concern. When hacking happens, something is normally ruined or altered, usually the operational systems. But we did not see this in the case of Hillary Clinton, merely getting crucial information and bringing it out for sharing, like what Julian Assange and Wikileaks did by revealing truthful information from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
This is corroborated by a Daily Mail report in which a WikiLeaks operative says that he " personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by disgusted whistleblowers and not hacked by Russia".
What happened earlier is also interesting to note- spy agents refusing to show up on Capitol Hill for an intelligence briefing requested by the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes ( R- CA). Why are they declining to cooperate?<<Back