American leaders and media continue claiming that Russian interference with the U.S. presidential election resulted in Donald Trump winning. Yet others are beginning to find problems with this accusation, lending support to my assessment that the dominant narrative for this story is wrong.
I wrote a lengthy analysis at the Security and Culture Intelligencer on Dec. 16 that noted several problems with the accusation that Russia won the election for Trump. That analysis also brought up several other issues regarding the election and U.S. national security that no one else is discussing.
Other people are starting to challenge the dominant narrative as well.
The most extensive article I’ve seen on the problems with the prevailing narrative came from the Daily Caller on Dec. 19. Here is how author Rachel Stoltzfoos started her story.
> The reports on the intelligence community’s (IC) alleged conclusion that Russia wanted President-elect Donald Trump to win the election have been, in a word, schizophrenic. They’re also drawing on some odd sourcing.
The sources for that conclusion is one of the major points of my SCI analysis. Stoltzfoos’s article also covers several of the other issues that I wrote about in my two analyses.
Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey also went on the record with remarks that challenge the narrative that American leaders and media are spreading. Breitbart interviewed him and published his comments in two separate posts on Dec. 19.
In one post, Breitbart published Woolsey’s remarks on the Russians and their influence operations.
> “In the first place, the Russians using propaganda, or various other means of that sort, have been on their neighbors and other countries’ cases now since at least the 1940s, and possibly going back into the 30s,” Woolsey pointed out.
In the second post, Breitbart published Woolsey’s remarks on the behavior of leakers.
> “I don’t know who’s been leaking this material, and I think they’d be wise to stop, because I think it does harm the credibility of not only intelligence agencies, but other agencies that are clearly doing leaking,” he added.
Woolsey’s comments are similar to what I wrote in my Loftus Party analysis (foreign states have long interfered with America) and are similar to what I wrote in my SCI analysis (there is a problem with government officials leaking classified information).
If you haven’t already read my analyses at SCI and the Loftus Party, now is a great time to do so. The current narrative that Russian influence won the election for Trump will not stand over time. Furthermore, I bring up serious issues and national security threats regarding the election, Russia, and other nations that no one else is addressing.