Democracy or Empire?

In the news this past week:  CIA Director Haspel Blocking Declassification Of Russiagate Documents and Haspel Blocking Declassification Of Russiagate Documents To Protect CIA's Reputation

"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between Washington and London," Davis said.

"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will show the American people the truth of what actually happened."

For four years, our national discourse has been dominated by the question of whether or not our president treasonously conspired with Russia. Even if there was no treason (as now is clear), the Trump presidency is viewed by many as illegitimate because it was determined by Russia. On January 6, 2017, just before Trump took office as president, the Directory of National Intelligence issued a report claiming with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. As the New York Times put it: 

In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters...   

Six months later, the New York Times blasted Trump in an article entitled Trump’s Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies:  

The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump’s party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.

The Times was wrong about this as they admitted 2 weeks later -- Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree:

President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin...

Mr. Trump was also correct about inaccurate news reports. Some, including an article in The New York Times, incorrectly reported that all 17 American intelligence agencies had endorsed the assessment. 

The Times was again wrong in reporting that "all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin".  As the Times itself had reported on January 6:

the N.S.A. was less certain than the other agencies that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump

So this is confusing.  As the years went by, a special prosecutor led by Robert Mueller was empowered to investigate the Russian interference and possible treason by Trump.  Mueller found nothing treasonous, but continued to support the notion that Russia interfered in the election.  However, there was a great deal of controversy regarding the finding that Trump did not conspire with the Russians, and the Democrats and mainstream media contended that was likely because Trump obstructed the investigation.  The partisan divide deepened and hardened.

Since the release of the Mueller Report, the original intelligence tied to both Russian interference and possible Trump collusion has continued to unwind, along with our domestic political fabric.  From How CIA's Brennan Overruled Dissenting Analysts Who Concluded Russia Favored Hillary:

The ICA, which was hastily put together over 30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures from past tradecraft.

It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.  His claim that Putin had personally ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.

“Some of the FBI source’s [Steele’s] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the assessment,” stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written by Brennan loyalists. “The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin ‘feared and hated.’ “

Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department’s inspector general as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several allegations have been debunked, even by Steele’s own primary source, who confessed to the FBI that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from Steele.

Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department’s watchdog that the Steele material, which he referred to as the “Crown material,” was incorporated with the ICA because it was “corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment “The IC analysts found it credible on its face,” Comey said. 

So our democracy is coming unraveled on the basis of intelligence estimates which have been reported as the truth by the New York Times and other mainstream outlets, yet do not stand the test of time.  We could clear up the matter by releasing the evidence used to formulate the intelligence estimate, but this would apparently embarrass the CIA.  Our elite media passes on the work of the intelligence community as truth even when the evidence cannot be verified because of security concerns.  Protecting intelligence sources in the new cold war is thus seen as more important than having a viable democracy based upon truth.

Claims, by the mainstream media and Democratic party leadership, of Russian interference in our elections have been used to discredit the legitimacy of Trump's presidency.  In the interest of democracy, the evidence for the Russian interference should be declassified.  Restoring faith in our system of government is more important than protecting in our sources in the new Cold War, especially now that there is good reason to suspect that the sources have not been accurate.

Update on Haspel: Intel Sources: 

CIA Director Gina Haspel Banking On Trump Loss To Keep Russiagate Documents Hidden

“The frustration with Haspel is reaching nuclear levels,” one official said, noting that White House and top U.S. intelligence community officials have been taken aback by the ferocity of Haspel’s refusal to release documents.