The Russian hacking truth revealed: Today's news for January 6th

Before the headline story of today, we need to look at something from yesterday:

Newsweek:

U.S. INTELLIGENCE LEADERS PUSH BACK ON TRUMP ATTACKS

American intelligence officials on Thursday got a chance to hit back against the broad attacks Donald Trump has lobbed against them, a day ahead of their briefing with the president-elect on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, the National Security Agency director, Admiral Mike Rogers, and the undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Marcel Lettre, warned during a Senate Armed Services Committee on cybersecurity that Trump’s open dismissal of their agencies’ conclusions that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic Party email systems was hurting morale and could ultimately undermine national security.

...On Friday, Trump again went after intelligence officials on Twitter, claiming: “The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!” Intelligence officials say the briefing was always planned for Friday. And on Wednesday, he seemed to side with Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—which leaked the hacked emails—instead of with the intelligence community. “Julian Assange said ‘a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta’—why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!” Trump tweeted. Trump’s transition team also leaked word Wednesday that it is planning to restructure the office of the director of national intelligence and the CIA.

Trump’s praise of Assange, in particular, prompted rebukes from not only Democratic senators but from a few Republicans. The WikiLeaks founder, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain pointed out in his opening remarks, “is responsible for publishing names of people who worked for us who have put their lives in direct danger.”

“Do you think there is any credibility we should attach to this individual, given his record?” McCain asked Clapper.

“Not in my view,” the director responded.

Democrats were harsher. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill said she was appalled the president-elect would put Assange “on a pedestal” while denigrating America’s intelligence community. “I think it should bring about a hue and cry no matter if you’re a Republican or a Democrat.” And the senators eagerly prodded the intelligence officials to weigh in on Trump’s critiques.

Clapper was measured, but pointed. “I think there is an important distinction here between healthy skepticism, which policymakers…should always have” about intelligence, he said, when asked by McCaskill about Trump’s “trashing” of the intelligence community. But, he added, “I think there is a difference between skepticism and disparagement.”

Now for the 800 pound gorilla in the room: They are attacking Assange's credibility, and NOT attacking the truth of what was in the emails. Attacking the messenger is the refuge of the scoundrel who cannot handle the truth of the message.

Assange has a history of presenting the truth about both political parties, as well as the U.S. government. This would normally be called "speaking truth to power". To the powers that be, this is unacceptable, as evidenced by the full force of the United States being brought to bear on Assange.

The truth is that Assange is doing the job of the media, which is providing oversight on the U.S. government. This is a net positive for the American people. Or as Jesus Christ once said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

With that out of the way, let us move on to the sideshow...

CNN:

Intel report says US identifies go-betweens who gave emails to WikiLeaks

US intelligence has identified the go-betweens the Russians used to provide stolen emails to WikiLeaks, according to US officials familiar with the classified intelligence report that was presented to President Barack Obama on Thursday.

Assuming this is true, and the information is only pending release, this does require some thought.

The idea of "the Russians interfered with our election" is troubling, until you realize what they did exactly: They revealed the truth to the American people. Should you punish someone for telling the truth, even if it is acquired in an illegal manner?

However, I would add a caveat to this situation. Remember the Pentagon Papers? From History.com:

The Pentagon Papers was the name given to a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967, prepared at the request of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1967. As the Vietnam War dragged on and the U.S. military presence in South Vietnam increased to more than 500,000 troops by 1968, the military analyst Daniel Ellsberg (who had worked on the study) came to oppose the war, and decided that the information contained in the Pentagon Papers should be more widely available to the American public. He secretly photocopied the report and in March 1971 gave the copy to The New York Times, which subsequently published a series of articles based on the report’s findings. Amid the national and international uproar that followed, the federal government tried unsuccessfully to block publication of the Pentagon Papers on grounds of national security. 

...Published at a time when support for U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was steadily eroding, the Pentagon Papers confirmed many people’s suspicions about the active role the U.S. government had taken in building up the conflict. 

What Ellsberg did was completely illegal...and necessary.

We can argue about the Russians' ulterior motives, but at the end of the day, the fact of the matter was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton (with the abetment of the mainstream media) were as crooked as the day is long, and the Russians did the American people a favor, even if it was in the Russians' own rational self interest to do it.

Mind you, such behavior should not be encouraged. On the other hand, no amount of diplomatic pressure will prevent the Russians from trying such things in the future. It is like the old story of the scorpion and the frog. From Wikipedia:

A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.

It is in the Russians' nature to hack us. The best way to deal with this is strong firewalls and encrypted emails. In other words, don't carry the scorpion across the river again.