In his January 5 commentary, Byron York advocates a wait-and-see-the-evidence approach to the hyped-up Russian hacking scandal. But does he really expect believable evidence from our so-called “intelligence community?”
On March 12, 2013, National Intelligence Director James Clapper was asked by Ron Wyden, Democrat member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, if U.S. intelligence agencies collect data on American citizens.
Clapper replied: “No, sir...not wittingly.”
Subsequent leaks from Edward Snowden showed that the NSA was, in fact, collecting and storing bulk metadata of Americans’ phone records, and were able to capture email and Internet data as well.
On April 25, 2016, Clapper claimed that “the onset of commercial encryption has accelerated by seven years” because of Snowden’s leaks, having a “profound effect on our ability to collect, particularly against terrorists.”
There is no evidence jihadists altered their encryption tools in response to Snowden’s leaks.
On January 6, 2017, Clapper and associates released an assessment of Russian influence in which they “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” Yet they assess with “high confidence” that Russia’s activities intentionally favored Trump. How did they assess this? How can emails published by WikiLeaks be traced back through the Russian government?
Bigly secret. Can’t say.
It’s always a good idea to read the small print: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”
I assess with high confidence the overseer of our intelligence services is highly politicized.
It is possible the Russians influenced the election by exposing the deceit and ineptitude of the Clinton campaign via WikiLeaks. Meanwhile, the cuckoo-for-Clinton NY Times and Washington Post may have influenced the election by sidelining Sanders, printing only negative stories about Trump, and ignoring the embarrassing emails that show collusion between the Clinton camp and media.
And now the election has been duly influenced, Hillary supporters applaud war hawks McCain and Graham for demonizing the Russians. Strange days, indeed.
Has the great success of Hillary Clinton’s “Russian Reset” (AKA “Russian Overcharge”) been so soon forgotten? If the Russians are, as Romney claimed, “our number one geopolitical foe,” would it not have been better for Trump if the Russians had simply endorsed Clinton?