Judiciary and Intelligence Committees: CIA and Biden’s own Campaign Interfered with 2020 Election

From the WSJ article, "Biden’s CIA Assist in the 2020 Presidential Election: The agency, not only retirees, turns out to have worked on the Hunter excuse letter."

Even new habits are hard to break, and that’s the case with a federal intelligence apparatus that can’t keep its fingers out of elections. It seems President-elect Biden on Nov. 4, 2020, owed thanks not only to a cabal of former intelligence officials, but to the Central Intelligence Agency.

That’s the big takeaway of this week’s interim report from House committees detailing the origins of the October 2020 disinformation letter about Hunter Biden’s laptop. An earlier release revealed that Joe Biden’s campaign helped engineer a statement from 51 former U.S. spies that claimed the laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” That letter provided Democrats, journalists and social-media companies the excuse to dismiss and censor evidence of Hunter’s influence peddling, removing an obstacle from his father’s path to victory.

Now we find out that, according to a written statement supplied to the committee, an active CIA official joined the effort to solicit more signers to the letter. The campaign to elect Joe Biden extended into Langley.

The report (issued jointly by the Judiciary and Intelligence committees and the Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government) tells the sordid story of the letter, beginning with a call from Biden campaign official Antony Blinken to former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell three days after the New York Post published its laptop scoop. Mr. Morell told the committees that Mr. Blinken wanted his “reaction” to the laptop news, but another signer said Mr. Morell put it to him bluntly: the Biden campaign “asked” for the letter.

Continue ReadingJudiciary and Intelligence Committees: CIA and Biden’s own Campaign Interfered with 2020 Election

The Day Sam Harris Stopped Being a Skeptic

For many years I had listened to Making Sense, the podcast of Sam Harris. I admired Sam's ability to analyze many complex issues, including religion and cognitive science. I don't listen to him nearly as much any more. He has fallen off the tracks regarding COVID and censorship. I am also concerned that he has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome - I describe TDS as a disgust of Trump that is so intense that one is willing to start with the premise that Trump cannot ever again be president, then to reverse-engineer government and media institutions that get in the way, disabling them if necessary, doing whatever is necessary to guarantee that Trump never again holds power.

Recently, I found myself wondering when it was that I first noticed that Harris fell off the rails on these topics. I think it was on his January 2, 2019 with Renée DiResta, who is described in the podcast notes as "Director of Research at New Knowledge and Head of Policy at the nonprofit organization Data for Democracy." I remember listening to this podcast several years ago, thinking that Sam was simply eating out of DiResta's hand, taking everything she said without exercising any meaningful skepticism or pushback. While I listened to that podcast, it seemed like a truly bizarre moment compared to other episodes of an otherwise excellent well-informed, highly-engaging podcast.

At minute 18 of the podcast, Sam seemed hypnotized into head-nodding as DiResta described "Russian Interference in the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016." When Harris asked whether we know this to be true, DiResta responded there is "no basis for doubt," that it is "crystal clear," "it happened" and an "incontrovertible truth." A claim like this should result in dozens of questions, including who, what, when, where, how and why.

But that was the day Sam-the-Skeptic died. At Minute 20, Sam assured DiResta that this Russian interference only went in one direction. It "was not a pro-Clinton campaign." DiResta explained to Harris that the Russian "Internet Research Agency" was growing "tribes" on social media, based on divisive issues having nothing to do with Trump, then somehow switching those tribes and disillusionment into pro-Trump propaganda. DiResta explained that this social media propaganda was organized around ideas of "pride" of Americans "to exploit feelings of alienation" on topics as diverse as Immigration, southern culture, LGBT, Bernie Sanders, religious rights, BLM and pro-police. And then the Russians started "weaving in their support for candidate Trump." Somehow those evil-doers converted people who allegedly found these to be topics of interest to channel their frustrations into votes for Trump. And somehow these social media posts (a mere "81 Facebook pages") swayed the outcome of a national American election where multi-millions of dollars were being spent by the candidates themselves. DiResta spun this spectacularly unconvincing story based on black-box "trust me" causation. She was allowed to sell this wild story without backing it up with any meaningful corroborating statistics or any psychological analysis of how this tactic could possibly work, yet Harris sat on his hands for the entire podcast drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now we know a lot more about Renée DiResta. According to Michael Shellenberger's recent article: "Why Renee DiResta Leads The Censorship Industry: How a former CIA fellow came to lead US government efforts to stamp out disfavored speech on the Internet."

DiResta’s rise to the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community struck me back in December of last year as improbably meteoric. DiResta had repeatedly described her involvement in fighting disinformation as having started in 2013 when she became a new mom and grew concerned about spreading anti-vaccine information online. “In 2013,” she explained to Kara Swisher, “I had my first kid… You know, you have to do that preschool thing here, you’ve got to get them on a list a year early. I didn’t want to be in a preschool with a bunch of anti-vaxxers, candidly.” Two years later she was helping to fight ISIS online and by 2018 she was testifying before the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee.

Continue ReadingThe Day Sam Harris Stopped Being a Skeptic

About the Power of the CIA

How powerful is the CIA? Consider this "Six ways till Sunday . . ." comment Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddox in 2017:

Maddow: "Let me ask you, I don't know if you've seen this. I don't want to blindside you with this. This is the latest tweet--as you were just saying--the President elect's latest unsolicited pronouncement on the intelligence community. This was his tweet just a little while ago tonight, and as you see the scare quotes there."

The intelligence briefing on so called Russian hacking was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange.

Maddow: "We're actually told intelligence sources tell NBC News since this tweet has been posted, that actually this intelligence briefing for the president elect was always planned for Friday. It hasn't been delayed. But he's taking these shots, this antagonisms, taunting to the intelligence."

Chuck Schumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you. So even for a practical, supposedly hard nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this."

Maddow: "What do you think the intelligence community would do if they were mad?"

Schumer: "I don't know, but I from what I am told, they are very upset with how he has treated them and talked about them. And we need the intelligence community. We don't know what's gonna--look at the Russian hacking! Without the intelligence community, we wouldn't have discovered it."

Maddow: "Do you think he has an agenda to try to dismantle parts of the intelligence community. I mean, this form of when we talk to hostility . . ."

Schumer: "Let me tell you, whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative Republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community."

In the meantime, Seymour Hersh has just released another jaw-dropping story, this one about John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, the CIA and the Mafia. Title: "THE KENNEDYS' SECRET SICILIAN OPERATION: What the CIA didn't tell the Warren Commission."

And I'm slowly working my way through The Devil's Chessboard, by David Talbot. Dozens of sordid tales about the CIA.

Continue ReadingAbout the Power of the CIA

Democrats’ Love Affair With Spy Agencies

Once upon a time, Democrats mistrusted spies.

[Added May 11, 2021]

From a 2019 article: "Resistance" liberals love the FBI and CIA. History says they don't love you back."

This situation evolved over the past 10 years or less. Here is a 2019 Slate article commenting on this change: "Hayden, the former director of both the National Security Agency and the CIA, has become a favorite critic of Trump’s irresponsible and reckless foreign policy posturing. It is almost as if liberals, including MSNBC superstars Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, have forgotten or chosen to overlook that Hayden oversaw the creation of a massive surveillance program in the NSA, argued that law enforcement officials do not require “probable cause” to search the person and property of terrorist suspects, and defended the use of torture as a means of extracting information from “enemy combatants. There is an understandable impulse among many or most liberals to avoid crawling around on all fours in the conspiracy-theory sewers with Donald Trump and his assembly of “Deep State,” “fake news” weirdos. But to embrace the FBI, the CIA and their most enthusiastic apologists, however, comes close to vandalizing the entire democratic project.

In all likelihood, American liberals will soon come to regret lionizing the military-intelligence industrial complex: For instance, the next time a president — whether it's Donald Trump or a successor — pushes the country into a bloody and destructive overseas war for nebulous reasons, based on redacted intelligence reports, false premises and flat-out lies.

That was from 2019. Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald have often pointed out that things have continued to worsen. Taibbi published this article today: "Reporters Once Challenged the Spy State. Now, They're Agents of It. News companies are pioneering a new brand of vigilante reporting, partnering with the spy agencies they once oversaw." First line of Taibbi's article: "What a difference a decade makes."

Continue ReadingDemocrats’ Love Affair With Spy Agencies