U.S. intelligence agencies (not to mention Congress) have little to no credibility with public. They should heed Justin Amash's call for transparency.
By Nick Gillespie
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/cia-and-fbi-should-make-public-evidence/printThe Washington Post and The New York Times have released explosive reports suggesting that Russian hackers actively
screwed with the presidential election, even tipping things in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. The stories, however,
are based on anonymous sources from groups whose records of obfuscations, mistakes, and screw-ups are legendary. At least
one elected official, the libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, has called for public disclosure of whatever
evidence U.S. intelligence community presented to be made available to Congress:
If intel community has evidence, it should be shared immediately with all of Congress.
Be skeptical of any claims from anonymous officials. https://t.co/cBFyRGmypu
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 10, 2016
If anything, Amash is too selective in saying all members of Congress (instead of particular members and committees) should be
presented the full case. Rather, this is something the voting public should be able to suss out. We'll get to that in a moment.
The Post's assessment of Russian efforts includes statements like this one:
"It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor
one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected," said a senior U.S. official briefed on
an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. "That's the consensus view."...
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill
last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources.
Agency briefers told the senators it was now "quite clear" that electing Trump was Russia's goal,
according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence
matters.
According to the Post, officials in the Obama administration had been discussing how to deal with Russian activity, including
hacks of emails of the Democratic National Committee that were then supposedly given to Wikileaks, for months. The administration
ultimately did nothing (or at least nothing public) with their suspicions. Wikileaks denies that Russia was the source for either
the DNC emails or the "Podesta emails," which the group released in the final weeks of the election.
In its continuing coverage, The New York Times notes that the new revelations aren't based on new evidence:
The C.I.A.'s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new
intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some
who had read the agency's briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of
what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence—evidence that others
feel does not support firm judgments—that the Russians put a thumb on the scale
for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.
It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the
election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to
President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote.
But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president
is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years.
For more:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/cia-and-fbi-should-make-public-evidence/printBut the writer's conclusion is worth including here, too:
I'm less interested in the outcome of this particular election, which Trump won according to constitutional practice
(indeed, it's not even clear to me that the Russian activity described by the Times and Post would invalidate the
results). But we are facing a long-term decline in confidence and trust in virtually all major U.S. institutions. The drop-off
is particularly steep in governmental and political areas and is due entirely to incompetent and rotten
behavior on the part of elected officials, policymakers, and their supporters in government and the press. Americans didn't
simply become cynical in the 21st century. Rather, we elected people who spoke out of both sides of their mouths every time
they flapped their gums. Whether George W. Bush believed in weapons of mass destruction or not, the fact is the major
argument for invading Iraq came a cropper. At the same time, he and other Republicans insisted they were in favor of limited,
smaller government even as they presided its reckless growth in size, scope, and spending. The "anti-war" Obama maintained
a secret kill list, for God's sake, and made a hash of the economy, health care, and so much else. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid,
John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi: We know that folks such as these are lying whenever their gums are flapping.
Again, the point isn't that politicians are always liars or that government is always incompetent. It's that trust and confidence in
the honesty and efficacy of both have been shredded by (at least) the past 15 years' of experience. The 2016 election underscored
the decline in trust and confidence when the two major parties tossed up two candidates who were particularly incapable of being
straight with voters.
The 21st century is supposed to be all about transparency, right? Uber works because everyone in the system can keep track of one
another, so people generally play nice, right? Government, especially a federal government whose confidence rating is in the crapper,
needs to change its behavior and become more open and less shrouded. Having a really open discussion about these truly explosive
charges regarding an election that effectively ended in a dead heat between two parties and two candidates that are generally disliked
would be a good start toward a better, more believable future.
