This type of reasoning looks to me like it is primarily based on statistically inadequate application of post hoc testing. In this case the speaker cherry-picks a rare/unusual set of circumstances post hoc after seeing the outcome and then conducts a naive version of a post hoc test. In this test the speaker uses the a priori fact that this specific unusual circumstance would rarely lead to the outcome under normal processes to conclude that the occurrence of the outcome requires some special explanation involving departure from the normal process. This type of reasoning is shown below.
The problem with this approach is that it does not condition on the selection of the post hoc testing procedure itself, which cherry-picked the unusual circumstance after seeing the outcome. This method of inference is regarded as fallacious in statistical theory and it is well known to have extremely strong confirmatory bias (i.e., it often leads to confirmation of the asserted hypothesis, even if that hypothesis is false). As to the particular selection of the CIA in this case as the alleged intervenor, this part is perfectly reasonable if you know anything at all about CIA activities in the Ukraine over the past decade or two.
Unusual circumstance (X): Person X is a comedian who played the piano with his genitals.
Usual process (A): A presidential election with no hidden intervention by a clandestine agency (e.g., the CIA).
Unusual process (~A): Hidden intervention in the election by a clandestine agency (e.g., the CIA).
Outcome (Y): Person X becomes President of a country.
Naive post hoc test: Measured a priori (i.e., without conditioning on the post hoc test procedure), the probability P(Y|X & A) is low but the probability P(Y|X & ~A) is less low. Since X and Y are observed to be true, we infer ~A with high probability.