It was at this point the dissenters repeated the failures of the intelligence apparatus and the Mueller investigation: They produced no evidence. There is no indication the dissenters conducted tests to support their assertion on the speed question. The VIPS memo applied scientific method to the DNC mail theft for the first time and was intended as an "evidence to date" document. This marked a trans-formative advance in how the DNC incident can be understood: The imperative since has been to bring countervailing evidence to the investigative process, which continues. No one not the dissenters, not the DNC, not the "intelligence community," not Mueller, not the press has done so.
The dissenters have been silent since their contribution to The Nation's forum. Members have declined invitations to work with VIPS50 signatories to develop further the evidence presented in the memo. When I queried a number of dissenters for this commentary, one replied. This person did not address the findings of forensic investigators while reproducing what VIPS50 signatories term the "emotional arguments" that have characterized the dissenters' response to the memo since the drafting phase two summers ago. These continuing difficulties appear partly to reflect a desire not to be seen defending either Trump or the Russians.
Barr's Investigation
The NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Mueller investigation, the press -- none has shown the slightest interest in the findings outlined in VIPS50. This can come as no surprise, given the heavy investments all of these entities have made in the Russians-did-it explanation of the DNC email incident. But this omission is nonetheless negligent when one considers the contradicting evidence VIPS and those associated with it continue to amass. A key question now arises: Will the Barr investigation into the genesis of allegations of Russian interference, begun three months ago, transcend this politically inspired ignorance to expose official accounts of the mid2016 mail theft as fallacies?
The early signs were that Barr's investigators would at last explode the Russia-gate narrative. Trump was unmistakably determined to do so when he urged Barr to "investigate the investigators" last spring. In mid-May Barr appointed John Durham, a federal prosecutor, to direct this effort. Ten days later Trump gave Barr "full and complete authority to declassify information" related to the conduct of the intelligence agencies, the FBI, and the Justice Department.
It was clear very early that Trump was aware of VIPS50 and entertained a lively interest in its findings. In September 2017, two months after Consortium published the memo, he ordered Mike Pompeo, then director of the CIA, to interview Bill Binney, the leading technical expert within the VIPS group. Pompeo did so in October 2017, but by Binney's account he flinched: Pompeo heard Binney out at the president's insistence, but he never pursued the forensic findings the former NSA technical director walked him through.
This was an early sign, it is now plain, that even efforts to unearth the truth of the allegations against Russia that emanate from the White House would meet political resistance. Another came last Friday, when Trump was forced to drop John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican who pledged to support a full investigation of Russia-gate, as his nominee to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence. While Ratcliffe considered the orthodox Russia-gate narrative bogus, Coats was vigorous in his promotion of it.
This makes political will another key question to ask of the Barr investigation: Full exposure of the travesty of Russia-gate is almost certainly within Barr's power to achieve. Will he do so?
Whether Trump will remain consistent in his backing of Barr is another such question. While Trump habitually terms Russia-gate "a hoax," he has also indicated on a number of occasions that his true objective is simply to escape the charge that he colluded with Russians to win the 2016 election. "I never said Russia did not meddle in the election," Trump tweeted earlier this year. "I said, 'It may be Russia, or China, or another country or group, or it may be a 400pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer.' The Russian 'hoax' was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russiait never did!"
Donald J. Trump� �-- @realDonaldTrump
I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said "it may be Russia, or China or another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer." The Russian "hoax" was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia -- it never did!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
3
2
