Where's the Proof? Calls Grow to Declassify Evidence of Alleged Russian Hack
"There is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent"
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."