If you spray bullets in all directions, some few of them hit the target. Such is the case with Donald Trump’s tweet machine, together with his speeches, phone interviews, and every other manner of communication he employs. His direct challenge to the so-called intelligence community, more specifically the CIA, hit the target the CIA put on its own back.

I have to say right at the start here, I have no idea whether Obama’s accusation against Russia is true. That’s the point. No one except Putin knows. The accusation is baseless, because no evidence for it exists. Secret evidence is not evidence. No one with integrity makes accusations based on secret evidence. I would say that secret evidence is worse than no evidence, because secret evidence suggests all kinds of bad motives.

For some unfathomable reason that only John Brennan and James Clapper know, the CIA has gone along with Obama’s charge that Russian intelligence hacked our election process in order to help Trump get elected. It has done so without even pretending to supply any evidence for the charge. We’re supposed to believe this accusation because the CIA says so. Even Republican senators climbed onto the president’s wagon, to join their indignant Democratic colleagues. We have bipartisan foreign policy again.

Trump pipes up to remind all of us that the CIA ginned up WMD, to whip up fear and fervor to fight Saddam. The CIA actually sponsored the secretary of state, Colin Powell, to go before the United Nations with their fake evidence. For extra measure, the CIA supported Bush’s charge that Saddam “did” 9/11, along with bin Laden and any other villains the White House thought to cook up. No one is safe with these people running loose, the White House implied. We have to get them, now. We’ll protect you, no matter what it takes.

Good god, mates, who do the intelligence analysts think they’re talking to? Virtually no one believes a thing they say, after the fiasco in Iraq.

Wow. Did that propaganda turn out phony, or what? Now the White House has cooked up another faux conflict, with our friends in the Kremlin. Secret agents, otherwise known as spooks, hide behind their security classifications as they back the president’s move: “Yep, yep, that’s right. Go get ’em, Mr. President! We have all the evidence we need right here. You go in and get those bastards, because they’re out to get us.”

Good god, mates, who do the intelligence analysts think they’re talking to? Virtually no one believes a thing they say, after the fiasco in Iraq. Yet the mainstreamers chime in uncritically, “Yep, yep, that’s the CIA telling us the Russkies canned us again. Make it so. Go for those sanctions.” The backbench Democrats chime in, “Yep, yep, that’s why we lost, because the Russians hacked our election systems.” You start to wonder when someone might say, “Give me a break.”

Well, Machine Gun Trump arrives to respond unequivocally, “These charges are bogus. Give us all a break.” Mainstreamers are aghast the president-elect would question the intelligence community. You just do not do that. If you take on the CIA, you take on one powerful agency. If you want to challenge the CIA, the agency has an open-topped limousine they’d like you to drive.

Mainstreamers didn’t go there – assassination is not in the air at the moment. Washington’s journalists just think it’s highly impolitic for the president-elect to question the CIA’s “intelligence”. Yet if the president does not question it, who will? Do you think lower-ranking officials will question it if the president places his trust in the CIA’s confidential analysis? Of course not. Everyone says, “Yep, yep. The CIA gives us the straight scoop.”

Well, Machine Gun Trump arrives to respond unequivocally, “These charges are bogus. Give us all a break.” Mainstreamers are aghast the president-elect would question the intelligence community.

Suppose the president gravely turns to his advisors after he receives his intelligence briefing and asks, “In light of this information, ladies and gentlemen, what do you think we ought to do?” Do you think his advisors will say, “Mr. President, you can’t trust the CIA. We can’t give you advice based on this two-page briefing they give you.” No, no, presidents do not question the CIA. The hallowed daily intelligence briefing must abide. The president decides, but we abide. We’re the experts.

That takes us a little off the subject, though. We know how the CIA loves to poke the Russkies. Moreover, the current controversy gives them yet another chance to drag out their cyber-threat dog and pony show. They know where the money is. If they can convince Congress to pony up for cyber-security, they can spend even more money, and put even more surveillance apparatus in place. Keep the people scared, because that’s how we stay in business.

So the general process is that the CIA listens to what the president and other top advisors say. They gauge priorities, including top-priority threats that have the president’s attention. In light of those signals from their bosses and customers, they prepare threat assessments and related intelligence analysis. They gauge their audience’s reaction, and a new round of threat analysis gets underway. We saw this process extend over months during the workup for the Iraq war.

Their candidate loses, though, so Democrats have plenty of reason to rustle up excuses that look like accusations. We don’t need evidence, people, we just need indignation and innuendo. If you want to deny Trump a honeymoon, what charge could be better than, “The Russians helped him win!” If I were in Hillary’s camp, I would have a hard time keeping my hands off that one.

The difference with election hacking is that the time period is so compressed. The leaks occurred over several months, starting with the first major trove of DNC email published in WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just before the Democratic convention. Accusations that the Russkies did it float about. Then Hillary Clinton loses the election. You can be totally sure we would not be talking about Russian hacking right now if she had won. Democrats would have no incentive to stir that pot if their candidate were headed for the White House, given their recent troubles with cyber-security.

Their candidate loses, though, so Democrats have plenty of reason to rustle up excuses that look like accusations. We don’t need evidence, people, we just need indignation and innuendo. If you want to deny Trump a honeymoon, what charge could be better than, “The Russians helped him win!” If I were in Hillary’s camp, I would have a hard time keeping my hands off that one.

The mystery is why Obama and the CIA decided they would muck around in that pond. Obama has a legacy to protect, and the CIA generally doesn’t like unnecessary publicity, let alone surprises and party politics. Yet Trump’s victory caught the Washington establishment completely unprepared, so all of a sudden the presidential transition starts to look like a farce. The stage has four or five doors, and people keep popping in and out. The latest plot twist isn’t that important, but you know it’s fun. The difference here is that our leaders make up the script as they go, while an international audience smiles and mocks the United States all around the world.

Obama had three reasons to respond as he did. First, Putin humiliated him.

One unfortunate reason for mockery is that we hack other country’s computer systems all the time. We hack our allies. We hack Angela Merkel’s cell phone. What do you suppose we do with Russian computer systems? For us to make a big, public stink about hackers in Russia just looks terrible. The Democratic snit over their candidate’s loss led their party’s leader, the president, to make amazing mistakes during his last two months in office. He leaves after eight years with no aura of accomplishment, or any of the sentiments people normally have on saying goodbye. What will he say during his farewell address? “I gave you affordable health care, and we protected John Podesta’s email. God rest his server.”

Obama had three reasons to respond as he did. First, Putin humiliated him. Allegations of election hacking appear to be a good chance to get even, or at least save some face. Second, except for his own reelection, the president suffered resounding repudiations of his leadership in four consecutive elections: 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. He was bound to share in his party’s shock over its November 2016 defeat. That would lead you to lay blame at any likely door. Third, the move appeared low cost. The Russians are always a convenient bogeyman. If you want to unite people against Trump, you can’t find a better target than Donald’s buddy, Vlad. Obama must have calculated the international costs as light. He would not have to bear them in any case.

Sadly, though, the CIA demonstrates its treachery and betrayal of American ideals all too often. Betrayal is never funny, certainly not laughable. Yet presidents still enlist their help.

The fourth and simplest reason is that Obama’s foreign policy team has bungled every previous challenge. How could we expect it to respond judiciously when rumors and accusations mount, when the Democratic party is desperate to justify itself in the face of an astonishing loss to a strongman? If you ever wanted a dramatic example of how domestic politics can affect foreign policy, Obama’s charges against Putin will do just fine. People will not forget the farce Obama directed as he went out the White House door.

So we need to come back around to the CIA, the agency everyone but mainstreamers hates. You can go with the old saw, “They would be laughable if they weren’t so treacherous.” You might hope for the converse as well: “They would be treacherous if they weren’t so laughable.” They try to convince us over and over with the same bag of transparent tricks. After you cry “Wolf!,” or “Bear!,” or “Saddam!” often enough, people really will dismiss you the next time you try to gin up a wave of fear. Sadly, though, the CIA demonstrates its treachery and betrayal of American ideals all too often. Betrayal is never funny, certainly not laughable. Yet presidents still enlist their help.

I do not expect the CIA to execute a second sitting president. They have other tools, and they generally use them conservatively. Therefore Trump’s challenge to the agency, high stakes though it may be, won’t result in his leaving office, via coup or otherwise. Trump’s public questioning of the CIA will have interesting consequences, though. Maybe he’ll tweet some of them to us.

---

Related article

The U.S. Intelligence Community Freaks Out About Russia: The declassified CIA report comes up short.