Putin as young KGB official
For the last few weeks, many have been in an outrage at the lies of the intelligence agencies for claiming that it was Russia that hacked the emails that nailed Clinton. An ABC poll (A+ rated for accuracy) found that of likely voters, 1/3 were "less likely to vote for Clinton" after the late October FBI disclosures by Comey.
A great hue and cry went up: The FBI is trying to delegitimize Trump's victory; then the CIA and NSA joined the consensus that Russia had indeed intervened, just as Trump had asked them to, to cause a regime change. Respected pundits like Paul Craig Roberts, Ray McGovern, William Binney, and many others, were outraged at the lies of the intelligence agencies. They wrote articles such as
Chris Hedges and they appeared on Fox News and Russian TV (with 35 million daily viewers) to decry the lies and treason of the intelligence agencies. Where is the evidence? they yelled. The media was splattered with articles of outrage at this hideous lie.
And those saying, keep an open mind, the Russians had motive and means, the intelligence agencies don't ONLY lies but often tell the truth to maintain a scintilla of respectability and often to protect themselves from politicians, like Bush II, who lied about their reports of nuclear development in Iraq, and so these outraged pundits declared: this is just another intelligence lie, meant to harm Trump (the Law and Order candidate), and those who are buying this fake news are fools or shills. The noise was overwhelming.
And now there is an eerie silence, as Trump himself, whom so many who were defending his claims that the whole story of Russian hacking was just a Democrat lies to cover up their defeat (they only won by 3 million), says today, at his first press conference in 6 months, that indeed, Russia did the hacking.
So the intelligence agencies told the truth and the pundits who attacked it were all wrong? Hmnnnn.....
So it was not a 14 yr old, as Assange, a saint to many, said, or a 400 lb slob, as Trump himself had said during the debates with Clinton. it was.....the Russians.
And, according to the ABC poll, 40 million Americans when the Comey disclosure came out (with pundits screaming it was not hacked, it was leaked from the inside), if an A+ poll can be trusted, felt "less likely to vote for Clinton."
It would only take 100,000 to give Clinton the Electoral vote, so how many out of 40 million felt strongly enough to vote against Clinton, based on the disclosure? We don't know, but we can estimate it would take less than 1% to swing the election to Trump.
Trump, whose legitimacy all these pundits were defending (claiming the Russian hacking "lie" was an attempt at a coup), has thrown them all under the bus. As I have often said, Trump uses people and then discards them; to his supporters he said: "I don't need your votes any more." Go home and shut up. I will call you in 4 years.
Now to the intellectuals and former intelligence officials and pundits who attacked the Russian hacking lie, he says: I don't need you any more. And what will these suddenly discarded supporters of his legitimacy say? How will they deal with the fact that Trump agrees with the CIA/FBI/NSA that Russia hacked the election (and per the poll, threw the election to Trump).
Some are already saying: so what. The crimes of Clinton being exposed justifies a campaign which succeeds in regime change. Trump himself, at today's new conference, encouraged his audience to consider what he considered a major crime against humanity, that the emails exposed that Clinton had been given debate questions before hand.