 |
| Undersecretary of Intelligence, Defense Department |
America was attacked. Our 2016 election was intentionally manipulated by a foreign power: Russia.
Yesterday I heard a presentation by Marcel Lettre at the JFK School at Harvard. His name is not well known but he has an important job: he is the Undersecretary of Intelligence, which makes him the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on issues of Intelligence.
He had a quiet session. Because it was off the record I will report only what did not happen. No one asked the question, "Didn't our republic just get attacked on your watch? Why aren't you sweating in front of Oversight Committees, explaining why you were asleep at the switch?"
He had a quiet session. Because it was off the record I will report only what did not happen. No one asked the question, "Didn't our republic just get attacked on your watch? Why aren't you sweating in front of Oversight Committees, explaining why you were asleep at the switch?"
There is a strong defense orientation at the Kennedy School. Many of the students are mid-career military officers. Many of the seminars involve how to protect America from threats to our existence as a nation. The attack on 9-11 killed some 3,100 Americans and caused several billion dollars of direct damage. It changed American priorities but it did not endanger the United States as a sovereign republic. We learned jet planes can be made into bombs. We also learned America could take the hit and survive.
Various seminars discuss at the nuclear threat, both present and potential, economic threats from China and other trading partners, threats from new technologies. But there is rising understanding that the greatest threat to the United States could come from cyber threats, not bombs. The electrical grid might be commandeered or disabled. The economic life of America might be frozen if somehow the internet were frozen up. Our financial markets might be destroyed.
Or possibly some of the constitutional organs of government might be hacked, interfering with the legitimacy of our republic. And that is what happened.
Notice I am not saying it changed the outcome of the election, but may well have. And some people may well believe that the American public deserved to know the interior discussions within the Democratic National Committee and the internal back-and-forth emails within the Hillary Clinton campaign. But one thing is certain. The election was intentionally manipulated by a foreign power with a specific intent of helping one candidate and hurting another. John Podesta had not thought his internal campaign emails would be made public and leaked to be published on Breitbart.com in the weeks prior to the election.
 |
| No hearings, no complaint |
Imagine the reverse: Imagine Russia had hacked into Trump Tower or the RNC and leaked internal emails between Steve Bannon and Trump, some of which had embarrassingly frank characterizations of fellow Republicans, and imagine that Hillary had narrowly won the election. Wouldn't there be outrage by Republican Oversight Committees demanding Marcel Lettre explain why he was asleep at the switch when our country was being attacked by a foreign power? What did an Obama appointee know and when did he know it? Why did we not intercept this attack on America?
There would be immediate investigations of whether anyone in the Clinton campaign knew of the hacking of Republicans and whether Obama accidentally-on-purpose allowed the hack. A Republican House would be holding hearings demanding resignations or removal of Defense Department leadership, and perhaps Hillary Clinton herself. American Democracy was subverted. Heads should roll. This was an invasion by a foreign enemy. And, indeed, it would have been an attack by a foreign country.
This did not happen. It was Hillary's campaign that was hacked. The Obama appointees have kept their jobs. There is no news of removals, no impeachments.
Indeed, no tough questions at Harvard.
Indeed, no tough questions at Harvard.
2 comments:
NY Times, October 7, 2016 “U.S. Says Russia Directed Hacks to Influence Elections”
Why was the Undersecretary of Intelligence whispering in an off the record meeting the unambiguous and public “formal” charge by the U.S. Government that Russia hacked DNC email to interfere with our election? It is tantamount to him locking the doors and whispering “the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor”.
Here is the NY Times report of October 7, 2016:
“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday formally accused the Russian government of stealing and disclosing emails from the Democratic National Committee and a range of other institutions and prominent individuals, immediately raising the issue of whether President Obama would seek sanctions or other retaliation. In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites ‘are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process’.”
So we’ve already officially charged Russia with hacking the Clinton campaign “to interfere with the U.S. election process”. I think we can assume that this US intelligence official went to Harvard with some intent of rehashing the story. So the real question is why does the US want to recreate the old headline? I’m guessing the reason is to either (1) prod Obama to retaliate, and/or (2) discredit Trump’s open skepticism that the Russian government (as distinguished from its legions of private internet scam hackers) is to blame. Since it’s hard to believe that Obama shirked his duty and has done nothing to punish Russia (assuming Obama believes Russia did it), then the only likely conclusion is that it’s reason number (2)—to discredit Trump, i.e., discredit him some more, since Democrats chanted “Russia, Russia, Russia” all the way up to election day. Didn’t we?
In any case, there can be little question that the Under Secretary’s remarks at a Harvard “political forum” have a political purpose. As the New York Times also reported on October 7, 2016:
“But with little more than a month to go before the presidential election, one senior administration official said that Mr. Obama was ‘under pressure to act now’, in part because a declaration closer to Election Day would appear to be political.”
Makes sense. But the New York Times also noted a more overt political purpose in the October 7th indictment of Russia:
“Two days ahead of the second presidential debate, the announcement also puts the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, more on the defensive over his assertion last month that Mr. Putin is a better leader than Mr. Obama.”
Oh no! That one sounds a bit close to the line to me.
And indeed it did put Trump “more on the defensive”, but the deplorables, white nationalists, 30% of Hispanics, old Cubans, unemployed coal miners, and blue collar stiffs just didn’t care about Russia, maybe? Admittedly, Russia’s election interference pales in comparison to say, US interference in virtually every election in Central and South America until Oliver North was indicted on 16 felony counts in 1989 for Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal—the primary purpose of which was funding coups and assassinations of candidates and leaders. No question, military coups and assassinations remain the best methods for election interference, as Putin recently demonstrated in Reaganesque fashion in Crimea and Ukraine. Right?
So, if the Harvard forum can help us keep churning the narrative that Hillary lost because of Russia, then count me in, as long as we also keep trying to formulate the lessons learned as to the real reasons we lost.
This is part of Putin's (apparently quite successful) war strategy against not just the US but Europe as well. The October 22nd Economist had an excellent article on this. It does definitely merit the language of "attack". The urgency is all the more given that we are about to swear in a president whose relationship with and obligations to Putin are unknown. We know he thinks he can be president and produce a reality show simultaneously. That confirms the presidency will be outsourced -- to Mike Pence or Vladimir Putin? I'd say we'd better find out quick. I thank Senators McCain and Graham for being the only Republicans demanding to know.
Funny how most of the party that wraps itself in the flag seems frightfully unconcerned about violations of American sovereignty. Well, not actually funny.
Post a Comment