On Saturday CNN put forth on program after program that the recent US presidential election was interfered with by the Russians, offering no proof.
This hysteria peaked when Michael Smerconish, on his CNN program, said the Russians hacked the Democratic and Republican campaigns to do this. When a guest asked “Show me one fact,” to support that, Smerconish went ballistic. His face turned red and he began stuttering, looking for an answer. Nobody is supposed to question corporate media “facts.” Finally Smerconish shot back with his proof, “Go ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”
Schultz, one recalls, headed the Democratic National Committee which rigged support for Hillary Clinton over her rival, Bernie Sanders, and got caught. She has absolutely no credibility beyond the Hillary campaign (and now, apparently, corporate media).
Again and again throughout the day, CNN “journalists” and guests posited that the Russians hacked the Democratic Party, without an iota of proof, other than sometimes pointing out that US intelligence agencies are claiming this (even so, there apparently are disputes within the various intelligence agencies about Russian involvement).
Outside of CNN, the rest of corporate media have also bought this hook line and sinker. But their claim that WikiLeaks got the information from Russians, has been refuted by none other than the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (apparently the entire corporate media multibillion dollar empire somehow missed this critical fact). Protecting his sources, Assange did not tell us who the hacker or hackers might be, but he made it clear that they are not the Russian government.
More importantly, we know that US intelligence agencies not only lie to the public, but lie to Congress and our presidents, having been repeatedly caught at this.
President Aristide example
In the 1990s senators claimed that the CIA told them that Haitian President Aristide had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in Montreal. This was to make it seem that Aristide was not playing with a full deck, part of a propaganda campaign at the time justifying a US-backed coup which overthrew Aristide.
But the fact is, Aristide had not only never been hospitalized for psychiatric care, but he had never been to Canada. It was a CIA lie, much like the “evidence” presented to our leaders that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” leading to the illegal invasion of that unfortunate country.
Shortly after that incident, I interviewed Aristide (who’d recently been overthrown by a coup supported by President George H.W. Bush, and would later be overthrown a second time in a coup supported by son and President George W. Bush) who told me the Haitians who’d escaped Haiti to find refuge in the USA were being sent back and murdered. The murders were being carried out by Emmanuel Constant and his FRAPH death squads, while Constant was on the payroll of the CIA. Bill Clinton was president at the time of this human rights horror.
As these murders of thousands were taking place, our intelligence agencies (who were, remember, paying the salary of Emmanuel Constant) were claiming that the Haitian refugees were not political refugees, even though the truth is they were supporters of Aristide. Corporate media acted as stenographers to power, as usual, keeping the public in the dark.
Summary
If indeed the Russians are hacking in an attempt to influence the outcome of American elections, why can’t the intelligence agencies give us evidence? The constant corporate media mantra is they are afraid to do so would be to disclose sources and methods, but if that’s their excuse, why can’t they at least give evidence to the president-elect?
President-Elect Trump says he doesn’t believe the Russians are hacking to influence our elections. That suggests the intelligence agencies have not given him evidence to the contrary. If the intelligence agencies can’t trust the president-elect, who can they trust?
Can only the intelligence community be trusted to know what’s happening in our country? And why hasn’t anybody in the entire mainstream press, all pushing this story around the clock, got the guts to ask this central question?
Jack Balkwill has been published from the little read Rectangle, magazine of the English Honor Society, to the (then) millions of readers USA Today and many progressive publications/web sites such as Z Magazine, In These Times, Counterpunch, This Can’t Be Happening, Intrepid Report, and Dissident Voice. He is author of “An Attack on the National Security State,” about peace activists in prison.
I was accused of writing an article in a “Fake News” site by local Democratic faithful, for doing this. I unfriended them rather than get caught up in attempting a logical debate. Most of the hard core Democrats are convinced that the Russians caused Hillary to lose, which I find to be bizarre, and they accept anything the intelligence agencies give them
You write “President-Elect Trump says he doesn’t believe the Russians are hacking to influence our elections. That suggests the intelligence agencies have not given him evidence to the contrary. If the intelligence agencies can’t trust the president-elect, who can they trust?”
I gather you say this tongue-in-cheek. If the Presidet elect “earned” that title with the assistance of Putin, he would would be the last to say so. Or would expect Trump to tweet “Thanks, Russia, for helping me steal the election.”
This is an excellent article. I’ll make a few comments. First, shouldn’t the American people have the right to know that the Democratic Party worked diligently to ensure that Bernie wasn’t the nominee? Second, the last time the msm were all on the same page was right after Colin Powell “proved” at the UN that Saddam had WMD. Finally, if the Russians hacked the Democratic Party one would expect the signal intelligence folks, the NSA, to have evidence and they have said nothing. In conclusion, plenty of folks now believe that there was no hack and in fact the emails were leaked by a disgruntled Bernie supporter.