“The Post cites U.S. officials who received a message from CIA Director John Brennan that said both FBI Director James Comey and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, stand with the CIA on the issue.” (It means, the Washington Post, specifically.)
Could be but why do we have to hear it from the Washington Post, a newspaper that illustrated itself for both its partiality and its incompetence in the recent election? Why should I be quick to believe those who have egg on their faces because of Trump when they assert anything detrimental to Trump?
Why can’t the president of the CIA, of the FBI and James Clapper give a very public joint press conference where their credibility would be at stake? Mind you, if they do anything like this at all, I will say, “Bravo,” but:
At the risk of repeating something I posted myself a couple of days ago, there is no scientific way to find out who hacked what, only that something has been hacked. What is serving in lieu of a Russian signature in this case, according to the president, to the main press, to anyone? I am not arguing here that Putin is innocent in general. I would easily accuse him of triggering the Deluge and of setting up the Inquisition. It just seems strangely convenient to blame him, because he is an evil man, precisely.
Why is so little said – in connection with any hacking – about the Clinton campaign’s proven electronic incompetence? I remind you that Clinton herself argued this when explaining the external bathroom server and the erasure of tens of thousands of emails. Is it possible the campaign was simply hacked by a 26-year old living in his parents’ basement and still on their health insurance? Did the main press forget that the Clintonites themselves affirmed that they did not know what they were doing in that area?
Why would Putin have favored Trump (again)? Was it because he calculated that Clinton was already sold and paid for in advance by other powers? Did he fear she had little left to sell?
Repeating myself anew: How would the contents of Clinton campaign emails influence voters if those contents were innocent (like mine, for example)? I heard somewhere on TV, from a Clintonite, that John Podesta’s risotto recipe had been hacked. I like risotto, don’t eat it often enough. If that recipe had been made public, it might have made me more (MORE) inclined to vote for Clinton. (I voted for Trump reluctantly.) That’s on the one hand. On the other hand, any credible information of cheating against any of her rivals, including against Senator Sanders, was sure to turn me off for good. It did. It’s reasonable to assume that it turned off some, or even many, independent voters. Yes, it’s quite possible that the hacking influenced the election but only because it revealed filth that was supposed to remain private. Go ahead, kill the messenger!
Conservatives and Trumpistas are all over TV protesting that the current startling revival of that old hacking story is part of an attempt to de-legitimize in advance the Trump presidency. Maybe, but it’s a weak explanation. What I hear and what I read looks to this experienced writer like a collective narrative being constructed haltingly. There is clearly an attempt for all to tell the same story but it’s not going well; it must be confusing for the average person, with kids to take to school and a mortgage to pay. It’s so confusing that a FB friend of mine who prides himself on being well informed as well as analytical gave the impression yesterday on his FB that he thought Putin was accused of tampering with the voting process itself. (That is with the ballots and with their counting.) He is not, so far.
What I think I am seeing instead is a multi-directional set of accusations and of confessions, accompanied by an attempt at collective redemption among the leftist intelligentsia* of this country after the historical kick in the ass administered by not quite half of American voters. It was completely unexpected; it was a landslide next to their expectations of possible Trump success (the 30% deplorables, maximum, at worst?) It was unfair. It’s nearly inexplicable. Faction argues with faction, sub-groups of the Demo Party with subgroups, state Demo centers within themselves, liberal think tanks are paralyzed; sometimes, individual liberals also argue with themselves. That’s all in order to explain and to justify the Trump catastrophe. As, the Bible for example, recounts over and over again, in the aftermath of a disaster, groups of humans usually do two things: First, they find scapegoats and cut their throats. Clinton’s confidante Uma Abedin’s throat has not been cut (yet) but she was sure thrown under the bus. Second, they elaborate an explanatory myth. Here it goes: Monstrous Mr Putin robbed us, the real people, of our merited victory and installed the obscene Donald Trump to rule over us.
* On the left of the American political spectrum, the intelligentsia runs deep. It includes everyone who has read five books, and anyone who subscribes to the Atlantic and sometimes read parts of it.