Did Obama Work with Putin to Discredit Trump’s Election?
Did President Obama work with Vladimir Putin to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential victory by allowing Russia to conduct cyberattacks against the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the government in general during the 2016 election cycle? Evidence suggests that it is a question worth exploring.
Understanding the Context
Understand the context in which I write this. Top government and political leaders are accusing Russia of winning the election for Trump and (in some cases) accusing Trump of being a willing part of it.
Since they have gone down this road it is important that we examine everything that is going on—including the actions and possible actions of the accusers.
Did Obama Use Russian Cyberattacks as Insurance against a Hillary Loss?
The media and Democratic Party, including the White House, have now all but accused Trump of working with a foreign power to win the presidential election. And they are doing so in order to discredit his victory. The goal of doing all this to both punish the American People for voting for Trump, and to send a message that unless the People vote for who the Democrats and media want for president, America will suffer.
The Beginning of the Accusations
Obama and the Democrats, along with the usual suspects of Republicans, have called for investigations into Russia and its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As mentioned, Obama and the Democrats have gone so far as to all but say that Russia won the election for Trump.
They began this accusation based on a Dec. 9 Washington Post article. That article claimed U.S. government officials with access to classified CIA intelligence told Post reporters the CIA concluded in an official assessment that Russia interfered with the U.S. elections to help Trump win. The CIA has not confirmed this.
Why This Is a Problem
So all the hysteria about Russia helping Trump win the presidency is based on media reporting that government officials gave them unauthorized accounts of what supposedly the intelligence community (IC) is supposedly assessing. This fact should have killed the story. But it didn’t.
On top of this, focus should be on the Washington Post, which apparently worked with insider threats at the highest levels of government. If the Washington Post did indeed receive classified intelligence from government officials, American leaders should be demanding a massive counterintelligence investigation into the top levels of our government.
Yet they have failed to do so. This failure is appalling—particularly as these same leaders demand an investigation into if Trump won because of Russia.
Furthermore, this latest leak is part of a disturbing trend by the CIA in attacking Republican politicians. Leadership at the CIA apparently tried to undermine George W. Bush’s presidency in 2006. CIA leaders also apparently tried to undermine Republican President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
Nor is this the first time officials—apparently intelligence officials—have tried to undermine Trump. I wrote about leaking of classified intelligence against Trump in September.
Where are the calls for investigating this pattern of behavior?
And then there is the fact that such alleged leaks are coming out of the Obama regime and benefitting the Democratic Party. The Washington Post article with the first alleged leak, combined with subsequent ones in other media outlets, is one of the multiple pieces of evidence that should force serious people to examine Obama and what he is doing.
And that examination forces the question: Did Obama work with Putin to allow Russian cyberattacks against the U.S. as a strategy to undermine Trump should he defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election?
Additional evidence makes this question even more valid….
Read the entire assessment at the Security and Culture Intelligencer.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.