The recent pronouncement by the C.I.A. that Russian hackers intervened in the U.S. presidential election doesn't pass the sniff test--on multiple levels.
Let's consider the story on the most basic levels.
1. If the report is so "secret," why is it dominating the news flow?
2. Why was the "secret report" released now?
3. What actual forensic evidence is there of intervention? Were voting machines tampered with? Or is this "secret report" just another dose of fact-free "fake news" like The Washington Post's list of 200 "Russian propaganda" websites?
4. The report claims the entire U.S. intelligence community is in agreement on the "proof of Russian intervention on behalf of Trump" story, but then there's this:
"The C.I.A. presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered."
Given that the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) was so secret that its existence was denied for decades, do you really think the NSA is going to go public if it disagrees with the C.I.A.?
Given the structure of the Deep State and the intelligence community, "minor disagreements" could well mean complete, total disavowal of the C.I.A.'s report.
That this is the reality is suggested by the F.B.I.'s denunciation of the report's evidence-free, sweeping conclusion:
5. The supposed interventions clearly fall under the purview of the NSA. So why is the C.I.A. going public in what is clearly a politicized report intended to influence the public via massive, sustained coverage in the mainstream media?
6. Notice the double standard: so when the U.S. attempts to influence public opinion in other nations, it's OK, but when other nations pursue the same goal, it's not OK?
7. What are we to make of the sustained campaign to elevate "Russian hackers and propaganda" from signal noise to the deciding factor in the U.S. election?
8. Russian hacking and attempts to influence American public opinion are not new. The intelligence agencies tasked with protecting American cyberspace have long identified state-sponsored hacking from Russia and China as major threats. So why, all of a sudden, are we being told the Russians successfully influenced a U.S. election?
What changed? What new capabilities did they develop?
9. And most importantly, what evidence is there that Russian efforts affected the election? Were digital fingerprints found on voting machine records? Were payments to American media employees uncovered?
Shouldn't statements purported to be "fact" or the "truth" be substantiated beyond "trust us, an agency with a long history of failed intelligence, misinformation and illegal over-reach"?
10. Doesn't it raise alarms that such a momentous accusation is totally devoid of evidence? If you're going public with the conclusion, you have to go public with at least some of the evidence.
Here's the media blitz and some skeptical response:
Longtime readers know I have proposed a major divide in the Deep State--the elements of the federal government which don't change regardless of who is in elected office. This includes the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the diplomatic and trade infrastructure, Research and Revelopment, and America's own organs of media "framing" and "placement."
Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)
More recently, I wondered if the more progressive elements of the Deep State recognized the dangers to U.S. security posed by the neocons and their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and had decided to undermine her candidacy:
Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)
In other words, it's not the Russians who sabotaged Hillary--it's America's own Deep State that undermined her coronation. It wasn't a matter of personalities; it was much more profound than that. It was about the risks posed by the neocon strategies and policies, and just as importantly, the politicization of the intelligence network.
And this is precisely what we discern in the C.I.A.'s unprecedented and quite frankly, absurd "secret report:" a blatantly politicized "report" that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence agencies. (Silence doesn't mean approval in this sphere.)
We can now discern the warring camps of the Deep State more clearly. On the one side is the C.I.A., the mainstream media, and the civilians who have feasted on wealth and power from their participation in the neocon's Global Project.
On the other side is the Defense Department's own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation.
From this perspective, the C.I.A.'s rash, evidence-free "report" is a rear-guard political action against the winning faction of the Deep State. The Deep State elements that profited from the neocon agenda were confident that Hillary's victory would guarantee another eight years of globalist intervention. Her loss means they are now on the defensive, and like a cornered, enraged beast, they are lashing out with whatever they have in hand.
This goes a long way in explaining the C.I.A's release of a painfully threadbare and politicized "report."
It has been said that nothing happens by accident in politics, and it is certainly no accident that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, members of the U.S. Senate and the mainstream media are all suddenly buzzing about “Russian hacking” and “Russian interference” in our elections. Over the past 48 hours, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and just about every other major news source in America has been breathlessly telling us that the CIA has concluded that the Russians “intervened” in the presidential election with the specific goal of helping Donald Trump win.
The implication is that if the Russian interference was significant enough, it could have “unfairly” altered the outcome of the election and thus Donald Trump’s victory was not legitimate. And if his victory was not legitimate, that opens up all sorts of possibilities for the Democrats.
For those that have been wondering if the establishment was going to attempt to steal the presidency away from Donald Trump before he can be inaugurated, we now appear to have our answer.
There are several ways that this could work, and we’ll take it one step at a time.
On Friday, we were suddenly assaulted with all sorts of headlines about how the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the Russians interfered in the election and that they did so with the intention of helping Trump win.
More specifically, we are being told that it is the CIA that is the primary source of this “intelligence”. Of course the public is not being shown a shred of evidence that the Russians were behind any of this. Instead, we are just being told to trust the “experts” at the CIA…
The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR.
On Sunday, four members of the U.S. Senate came forward to express their concerns about Russian interference. Two of the four were Democrats, and the other two were Republicans that have been some of the most vocal critics of Donald Trump throughout the election season. I don’t think that it is any accident that John McCain and Lindsey Graham have chosen to be part of this effort…
And of course this comes on the heels of Barack Obama ordering all of the intelligence agencies under his command to show him any evidence of Russian interference in the election before he leaves office. According to NBC News, he is insisting that this evidence be delivered to him before January 20th…
President Barack Obama has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to deliver to him a dossier of the evidence that the Russian government used cyber attacks and other means to intervene in the 2016 election, possibly with the idea of making more information public, a senior intelligence official told NBC News.
White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco told reporters that the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20. Monaco used careful language, calling it a “full review of what happened during the 2016 election process.”
Incredibly, this review is actually going to be headed up by the infamous James Clapper…
Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: “The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.” In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.
But even if Trump successfully gets through the Electoral College vote, he still has one more hurdle to get over.
On January 6th, a joint session of Congress will meet to count the electoral votes. Most of the time this is a formality, but this time around that may not be the case.
If at least one member of the House and at least one member of the Senate submits an objection in writing, electoral votes can potentially be invalidated. The following comes from the official House.gov website…
Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.
And that may be what the establishment is shooting for. If they can present “compelling evidence” that Russian interference “unfairly” altered the outcome of the election in November, perhaps enough members of Congress can be convinced to vote to invalidate Trump’s election victory.
I don’t think that is going to happen, but when it comes to Trump the normal rules don’t seem to apply.
However, what should be apparent to everyone is that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the members of Congress that are suddenly making this such a huge issue all have a reason for doing so. They claim that they are doing it for the good of the country, but in politics there is almost always an ulterior motive for everything.
Do they actually intend to try to steal the presidency from Donald Trump?
If they do, we won’t have too long to wait before we find out.
No comments:
Post a Comment