FBI Disagrees With CIA’s Bogus “Russian Hacker” Report

The mainstream liberal media is trying to peddle a notion that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails. Turns out, the CIA and the FBI disagree about that completly. The CIA provided Capitol Hill Senators with a assessment of what they feel is Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election. Spoiler alert, they think they swayed it so that Donald Trump would win.

A Senior FBI counterintelligence official spoke before the House Intelligence Committee. Republican and Democratic Senators wanted answers about the conclusions the CIA had come to. The CIA’s conclusion had been that Russia clearly intended to interfere with the American election to help President Elect Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

Just a week prior a similar meeting took place with the Senate Intelligence Committee. The FBI said that the CIA’s statements were direct, bald and unqualified. The FBI indicates they felt that people in the bureau and people form the agency were not on the same page and that the comparison in investigations were fuzzy and ambiguous.

Law enforcement officials have been attempting to come to a conclusion about the Kremlin’s motives surrounding the presidential election. These conflicting reports from the FBI and the CIA bring to question what was really going on.

The messages that differ from the CIA and the FBI also show a conflict in cultural differences between the two influential organizations. The FBI focuses on tangible evidence to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt, which is true to their law enforcement roots. Their investigations lead to arrests and indictments so that level of scrutiny is required.

While the CIA is far more comfortable drawing their own conclusions from behavior rather than tangible facts that have been proven. Which often leads to circumstantial evidence. One anonymous official noted,

“The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court. The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means ‘we’re pretty damn sure.’ It doesn’t mean they can prove it in court.”

Another United States anonymous official said,

“There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals.”

Which one do you believe? The Federal Bureau of Investigation with their facts and proven evidence? Or the Central Intelligence Agency with their inferences and  gut instincts.

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Join the conversation!

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.