On Lawfare Professor Carrie Cordero discusses the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference in the US Presidential Election, and how it hasn’t changed much since Obama left office:
Since then, intelligence community officials in the Trump administration have reaffirmed the intelligence assessment regarding the Russian influence campaign that had begun during the prior administration. In congressional testimony and related statements, intelligence community leaders have made clear—despite the president’s rhetoric to the contrary—that there is no daylight between the intelligence community’s intelligence assessment in the current administration and that of the prior administration. In the national security community, that continuity is expected; but as part of the greater public dialogue, it is notable and important to highlight.
I view the continuity as important in the following ways.
- It indicates the intelligence community has not been terribly compromised by President Trump.
- It indicates the intelligence community is relatively undisturbed by changes in the political world, such as exchange of control of the White House. This indicates to me that they are non-partisan
- It may provide information – eventually – on why President Trump continues to deny their conclusions, and that may be incriminating – politically or even within the justice system – evidence for removing this incompetent amateur from this important position.
Professor Cordero goes on to address WikiLeaks:
As far as I know, consistent with practice, the U.S. government has not ever confirmed publicly whether it has an open counterintelligence investigation of WikiLeaks, although the Washington Post reported last spring that “the FBI has spent years investigating WikiLeaks…” and continued to do so in the context of the exfiltration of sensitive CIA hacking tools.
As a result, the U.S. intelligence community has made specific statements about WikiLeaks—without really saying what it is, who funds it, who controls it and how it obtains information it releases. This makes it difficult for the public to accurately understand how to interpret WikiLeaks’ activities and releases. The current approach also makes it difficult for consumers of information released by WikiLeaks, including but not limited to professional journalists, to understand whether they are reviewing information that has been released as a public service, or as an orchestrated effort intended to manipulate, which activities may be supported, conducted or encouraged by a foreign intelligence service.
Given the near-impossibility for a citizen to verify the information released by WikiLeaks is authentic and integral, I’ve made the decision to simply disregard WikiLeaks from here on out.
