If the emails had not revealed deep corruption on the part of the DNC and its media sycophants, there would have been nothing damaging about them at all.
If the media were the watchdogs they claim to be, we would not have needed some insider (Seth Rich?) to leak DNC emails to Wikileaks--the media would have already published the stories of DNC corruption and dirty dealing.
I can't help but contrast this whole story with an incident from the 1990s, when a couple of Democrat operatives "just happened" to tune in to Newt Gingrich's cell phone frequency while Newt was conversing with someone about how to adhere to legal requirements. The media totally ignored the illegal action of intentional spying on a US person, and tried to make a big controversy about Newt's intentions to follow the law.
But now, when the leaked emails show all kinds of unethical and illegal activity, what does the media focus on? A dog and pony show about imaginary Russian hacking of the election!
We admit we hacked Russian intelligence agents, who supposedly were celebrating that Trump won. Why is it acceptable for the US to hack Russian officials but not acceptable for Russians to hack John Podesta, who is a campaign manager not employed by the US government. The hypocrisy - and the fact that no one, not even Fox, is pointing out the blatant grotesque hypocrisy, is sickening. We tapped Angela Merkel’s cell phone, Snowden proved this.
It's right out of the spooks playbook. Divert, evade and deceive.
It reminds me of the Jay Rockefeller "pull the trigger" email from 2003, where Democrats conspired to push Republicans into sham investigations to serve Democrat purposes to delegitimize President Bush.
From 2003, Transcript of a memo to the Democrat members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, found on a shared server by Republican aide Manual Miranda:
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; orB) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
Once this memo was discovered, the MSM circled the wagons around Jay Rockefeller, who was being accused of manipulating the Intelligence Committee for partisan purposes.
Orrin Hatch, who fell back on his habit of capitulating under pressure when given a strong hand, supported the firing of Miranda after Democrats claimed that Miranda had "hacked" into the computer to find the memo. The truth is that it was an open server, available to all committee members, and the Democrat memo was in plain sight.
Republicans let Democrats successfully change the story from the content of the memo to how the memo was discovered.
-PJ