

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."
"Let's have some proof."
That's what some observers are demanding of President Barack Obama, urging him to declassify as much evidence as possible to support CIA claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections to bolster President-elect Donald Trump's candidacy.
Ten members of the Electoral College have signed an open letter asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to provide them with classified briefings on Russia's alleged hacking during the campaign.
"The Electors require to know from the intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and Russian government interference in the election, the scope of those investigations, how far those investigations may have reached, and who was involved in those investigations," the letter reads.
But in a piece published Tuesday, The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill and Jon Schwarz call for a more general release of such information, "to aid the public debate over interference in our election by a powerful nation state."
"Taking Donald Trump's position--that we should just ignore the question of Russian hacking and 'move on'-- would be a disaster," they write. "Relying on a hazy war of leaks from the CIA, FBI, various politicians, and their staff is an equally terrible idea."
In turn, they argue: "The only path forward that makes sense is for Obama to order the release of as much evidence as possible underlying the reported 'high confidence' of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia both intervened in the election and did so with the intention of aiding Trump's candidacy."
Indeed, some are pointing to a lack of such "hard evidence," while others claim the matter at hand is not, in fact, a "hack," but a "leak."
Meanwhile, Reuters reported exclusively on Tuesday that even "[t]he overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced" the CIA's assessment of cyber attacks.
Despite these questions, "there is a disturbing trend emerging that dictates that if you don't believe Russia hacked the election or if you simply demand evidence for this tremendously significant allegation, you must be a Trump apologist or a Soviet agent," Scahill and Schwarz say at The Intercept, calling for "anyone [with] solid proof that Russia interfered with U.S. elections, [to] send it to us via secure drop and we will verify its legitimacy and publish it."