According to unnamed officials a classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency blames the Russian government for, among other things, providing WikiLeaks with all those hacked emails during the 2016 election. One source referred to this conclusion as the “consensus view” of the intelligence community. Though if that’s the case then someone forgot to tell all those agents at the FBI who, in their desire to obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt (imagine that), have so far declined to make a definitive statement.
In an interview with John Pilger, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange referred to the claim as “neo-McCarthy hysteria” and indicated that “the Russian government is not the source.” Likewise, President-elect Donald Trump also rebuked the notion of absolute certainty observing that “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.” In response to Trump the New York Times quoted former spy master Michael Hayden. “To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions — wow.”
Note the subtle assumption throughout the media’s coverage that the CIA deals exclusively in the realm of facts and is the sole arbiter of what’s true and what isn’t. It’s reminiscent of the stance taken by the CIA’s original regime change mastermind, Allen Dulles, who claimed that “it [the CIA] alone has the world picture.”
Hello? Far be it from me to comment on the truckloads of secret evidence that the intelligence community has piled up somewhere to makes its airtight case, but I do recall that the argument they made for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a pretty flimsy. Several trillion dollars later there are millions of innocent civilians in the Middle East who are still paying for the decisions of American politicians.
It’s highly likely that the flurry of reports on alleged Russian hacking has more to do with a rejection of the status quo than with the act of political meddling. After all, the United States has a long and storied history of enabling aggressive intervention abroad. In the months running up to the November election the bulk of the American Deep State, with very few exceptions, aligned itself with Hillary Clinton. That the election gave us something other than their first choice is unacceptable, and therefore it must be depicted as the product of foreign subversion.
As far as the power elite are concerned the real issue with the 2016 leaks is that they offered the public an unfettered view of systemic corruption on behalf of an establishment politician who, with her husband, made over $150 million by doing nothing more than giving speeches to corporate leaders, promising that her private stance will benefit them despite her public stance. It’s a clear view of the oligarchy influencing policy.
Finally, keep in mind that when it comes to cyberattacks attribution is often extremely difficult if not impossible. The Pentagon and its patronage networks in the defense sector have invested heavily in developing tools that are specifically designed to thwart forensic analysis. It would be naïve to assume that other countries aren’t doing likewise. In the cyber realm take everything you hear from spy masters with a grain