One week before his inauguration, President-elect Trump was dealt an irresponsible, "warped and self-destructive" blow by the CIA and its allies in the media.
This conclusion was reached by Glenn Greenwald, in The Intercept.
Greenwald was quick to point out that the "serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There is a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combating those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience."
But, as Greenwald also noted, "cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive"...
This subversion involved the granting of official credence to a salacious, unsubstantiated document by a former British MI16 operative which claimed to have proof of conduct in a hotel room by President-elect Trump while he was in Moscow.
The document, which became known as the Trump dossier, originated from "opposition research" funded by enemies of Trump, first by Republicans who opposed his nomination, and then by Democrats who wanted him to lose to Hillary Clinton.
The salacious document, Greenwald writes, "was just an anonymous claim unaccompanied by any evidence or any specifics."
Of course, the anonymous claim was of a sexual nature. Sex and violence are media's bread and butter.
The document was circulated through unofficial channels during the presidential race, but on Thursday, January 12, it received a guaranteed ticket to public attention. Greenwald wrote:
"At some point last week, the chiefs of the intelligence agencies decided to declare that this ex-British intelligence operative was 'credible' enough that his allegations warranted briefing both Trump and Obama about them, thus stamping some sort of vague, indirect, and deniable official approval on these accusations."
What prompted this move from the dark corners of rumor and innuendo, to the glaring sunlight of media attention? Why did the salacious document become sufficiently "credible"?
If you want to believe "the chiefs of the [American] intelligence agencies," the document was moving so rapidly through social media and other internet channels, that it was necessary to brief both Trump and President Obama.
The intelligence chiefs thus stamped "some sort of vague, indirect and deniable official approval" on what could be pure fiction conjured by a retired British spy now doing political dirty work.
Or, the spy's document may be rooted in reality. Take your choice. Give it credence, or not. But remember, if there are video or written proofs of the alleged hotel hanky-panky, it has yet to surface or be verified.