In the immediate aftermath of last night's WaPo article revealing a "secret" CIA assessment according to which Russia (without a shred of evidence) helped Trump win the election, we explained - in five points - how this was nothing short of a "soft coup" attempt by leaders of the US Intel community and Obama administration to influence the Electoral College vote. To wit:
- Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
- Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
- Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
- Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
- Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
Shortly thereafter, the prominent beacon of liberal thought, Paul Krugman, confirmed that this agenda was quickly taking shape when he tweeted that "we'll have a president who lost the pop vote by 2.1%, got in thanks to FBI and Putin. And supporters will demand respect. Um, no."
He continued: "Also note CIA held findings until after election; FBI splashed its story -- which turned out to be LITERALLY nothing -- 10 days before", and concluded furiously that "The big problem, for me at least, it how to keep the rage on a simmer, rather than boiling over. The path to justice will be long 9:24 AM - 10 Dec 2016."
That was the initial salvo. It was to be followed promptly by many other liberal voices who have not only concluded that if it not for Russia, Trump would not win, but that without the involvement of FBI director Comey and Vladimir Putin, Hillary would have won the key swing states, and thus the presidency. Case in point, statistician Nate Silver who, together with all other experts, called the election drastically wrong, and is now seeking scapegoats. He appears to have found them.
Clinton lost 4 states (FL, MI, WI, PA) by ~1 point. If not for Comey/Russia, she probably wins them all by ~2 points & strategy looks great.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 10, 2016
And so, with Krugman laying out the ideological strawman, and "statistical genius" Nate Silver validating the fabricated strawman by calculating the odds of Hillary's victory if it wasn't for the FBI and evil Russian government hackers, the Democrats have come out swinging, with another liberal commentator, Keith Olberman, laying out the party line that "Priority now is preventing swearing in of Trump (R-Russia). From 9/28: "Is @realDonaldTrump Loyal To This Country?"...
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) December 10, 2016
...followed the the punchline: getting the Electoral College to "realize" that Clinton would be the winner, if only the unproven intervention of Putin (and his lapdog, FBI diretor Comey) had not happened.
— POLITICO (@politico) December 10, 2016
A Democratic congressman is suggesting that members of the Electoral College should be able to consider Russian interference in the presidential election — and whether it influenced the outcome — when deciding how to cast their vote.
Cicilline appears to be the first member of Congress and the highest-ranking elected official in the country to endorse the notion that electors aren’t simply rubber stamps for their states’ popular vote. Earlier Saturday, he retweeted a Rhode Island-based national security expert who argued that the intelligence community “must brief electoral college about Russia before vote.”
"To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result, I believe the electors have the right to consider that,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said in a statement to POLITICO on Saturday.
Cicilline’s comments come amid the explosive determination by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia interfered in the presidential election in support of Donald Trump. Trump’s transition team has forcefully denied the conclusion.
“EC exists to protect republic from candidate under foreign influence,” the expert, Salve Regina University researcher Jim Ludes, wrote.
Cicilline stopped short of endorsing that sentiment in his statement to POLITICO. But in a second tweet on Saturday, he urged the White House to publicize information surrounding the CIA’s assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump. “Before the Electoral College votes,” he added.
If Trump isn't profusely nervous at this very moment - when everyone from the Obama administration, to US intel, to every living, breathing liberal, to the "unbiased" press - will be screaming that Trump should not get the Dec. 19 EC vote and effectively engaging in a "soft coup", then he is not paying attention.