{"id":180847,"date":"2016-12-12T22:14:00","date_gmt":"2016-12-13T03:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/12\/12\/ok-this-has-completely-blown-up\/"},"modified":"2016-12-12T22:14:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T03:14:00","slug":"ok-this-has-completely-blown-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2016\/12\/12\/ok-this-has-completely-blown-up\/","title":{"rendered":"OK, This Has Completely Blown Up"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>There has been poo flung all over the place over the past few days regarding allegations of efforts of the Russians to influence the US elections.<\/div>\n<p>With the exception of Marcy Wheeler&#8217;s astute observation that the CIA is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.emptywheel.net\/2016\/12\/12\/cia-avoiding-conclusion-putin-hacked-hillary-retaliate-covert-actions\/\">studiously avoiding the obvious, that this is blowback against US regime change efforts against Russia and its allies<\/a>: <\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">The most logical explanation for the parade of leaks since Friday about why Russia hacked the Democrats is that the CIA has been avoiding admitting \u2014 perhaps even considering \u2014 the conclusion that Russia hacked Hillary in retaliation for the covert actions the CIA itself has taken against Russian interests. <\/p>\n<p>Based on WaPo\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign\/2016\/12\/09\/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.8148dfd4c448\">big story<\/a> Friday, I <a href=\"https:\/\/www.emptywheel.net\/2016\/12\/09\/unpacking-new-cia-leak-dont-ignore-aluminum-tube-footnote\/\">guessed<\/a> that there was more disagreement about Russia\u2019s hack than its sources \u2014 who seemed to be close to Senate Democrats \u2014 let on. I was right. Whereas on Friday WaPo <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks\/2016\/12\/10\/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.c744f50de0cf\">reported<\/a> that it was the consensus view that Russia hacked Hillary to get Trump elected, on Saturday the same journalists <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks\/2016\/12\/10\/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.c744f50de0cf\">reported<\/a> that CIA and FBI were giving dramatically different briefings to Intelligence Committees.<\/p>\n<p>\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n<p>Remarkably, only secondary commenters (including me, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.emptywheel.net\/2016\/12\/10\/evidence-prove-russian-hack\/\">in point 13 here<\/a>) have suggested the most obvious explanation: The likelihood that Russia targeted the former Secretary of State for a series of covert actions, all impacting key Russian interests, that at least started while she was Secretary of State. Those are: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: blue;\">Misleadingly getting the UN to sanction the Libya intervention based off the claim that it was about protecting civilians as opposed to regime change<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: blue;\">Generating protests targeting Putin in response to 2011 parliamentary elections<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: blue;\">Sponsoring \u201cmoderate rebels\u201d to defeat Bashar al-Assad<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: blue;\">Removing Viktor Yanukovych to install a pro-NATO government <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: blue;\">Importantly, the first three of these happened on Hillary\u2019s watch, with her active involvement. And Putin blamed Hillary, personally, for the protests in 2011.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>So, it&#8217;s pretty clear that <b>IF<\/b> Russia actively meddled in our election (and the operative word is if) it appears that their actions were fare less intrusive than what we did. in Libya, Syria, Russia, or the Ukraine, where we have supported jihadists and (not a term of art) fascists.<\/p>\n<p>In determining the veracity of the CIA&#8217;s assertions there are a couple of articles to review.<\/p>\n<p>First, an article from <i>The Guardian<\/i> that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/us-news\/2016\/dec\/10\/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report\">quotes Craig  Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, and close  associate of Assange<\/a>:&nbsp; (See also more extensive comments from Mr. Murray <a href=\"https:\/\/www.craigmurray.org.uk\/archives\/2016\/12\/cias-absence-conviction\/\">here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims \u201cbullsh%$\u201d, adding: \u201cThey are absolutely making it up.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI know who leaked them,\u201d Murray said. \u201cI\u2019ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it\u2019s an insider. It\u2019s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA\u2019s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAmerica has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it\u2019s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.\u201d<\/span> <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(<i>%$ mine<\/i>) <\/p>\n<p>Note that in <b>ALL<\/b> the articles, this is the only absolute claim that is made on the record.<\/p>\n<p>Also note that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks\/2016\/12\/10\/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.6194e826f818\">FBI and CIA have given conflicting briefings to lawmakers<\/a>: (Also see <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/11\/01\/us\/politics\/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html\">here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">In a secure meeting room under the Capitol last week, lawmakers held in their hands a classified letter written by colleagues in the Senate summing up a secret, new CIA assessment of Russia\u2019s role in the 2016 presidential election.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">Sitting before the House Intelligence Committee was a senior FBI counterintelligence official. The question the Republicans and Democrats in attendance wanted answered was whether the bureau concurred with the conclusions the CIA had just shared with senators that Russia \u201cquite\u201d clearly intended to help Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton and clinch the White House.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">For the Democrats in the room, the FBI\u2019s response was frustrating \u2014 even shocking.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">During a similar Senate Intelligence Committee briefing held the previous week, the CIA\u2019s statements, as reflected in the letter the lawmakers now held in their hands, were \u201cdirect and bald and unqualified\u201d about Russia\u2019s intentions to help Trump, according to one of the officials who attended the House briefing.<\/span><br \/><span style=\"color: blue;\"><br \/><\/span> <span style=\"color: blue;\">The FBI official\u2019s remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison, \u201cfuzzy\u201d and \u201cambiguous,\u201d suggesting to those in the room that the bureau and the agency weren\u2019t on the same page, the official said.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I&#8217;m with what Glenn Greenwald wrote for <i>The Intercept, &#8220;<\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/2016\/12\/10\/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence\/\">Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA\u2019s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence<\/a>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Though I would include the caveat\/clich\u00e9 that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<\/p>\n<p>I would also note the following paragraph buried in the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign\/2016\/12\/09\/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html\">original <i>Washington Post<\/i> story<\/a>, which relied entirely on anonymous sources:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: blue;\">The CIA presentation to senators about Russia\u2019s intentions <b><span style=\"font-size: 100%; font-variant: small-caps;\">fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies<\/span><\/b>. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency\u2019s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(<i>emphasis mine<\/i>)<\/p>\n<p>So, the actual facts of the matter are not clear, though people of different political bents are doing their best impression of blind men and an elephant.<\/p>\n<p>Certainly, Russia has an interest in undermining faith in the Democratic process in the United States.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Hillary Clinton&#8217;s record with Russia as Secretary of State was implacably and reflexively hostile to Russian concerns, so I could see how Russia might find the proverbial inverted traffic cone as a preferable alternative.<\/p>\n<p>This means that the assertions are plausible, but by no means persuasive, particularly since the CIA appears to be flying solo with these assertions.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the anonymous sourcing might imply that someone well into the &#8220;No f%$#s left give&#8221; category **cough** retiring Senator Harry Reid **cough* might simply be throwing some shade Donald Trump&#8217;s way.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m not sure what to believe, but even if all the allegations against Putin are true, they are far less aggressive than what the Obama administration, and the Hillary Clinton State Department were doing with Russia.<\/p>\n<p>In any case, this all falls firmly in the &#8220;Sauce for the Gander&#8221; category for me.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There has been poo flung all over the place over the past few days regarding allegations of efforts of the Russians to influence the US elections. With the exception of Marcy Wheeler&#8217;s astute observation that the CIA is studiously avoiding the obvious, that this is blowback against US regime change efforts against Russia and its &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[779,780,807,799,823,809],"class_list":["post-180847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-espionage","tag-hack-journalism","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-politics","tag-presidential-campaign","tag-russia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180847"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}