In the last month, there have been numerous attempts to foil the aftermath of Donald Trump’s win. First, there was the recount in four states spearheaded by Jill Stein, former presidential candidate of the Green Party, and backed by Hillary Clinton. There were accusations of a hacked election. There were also members of the Democratic party urging Electors to go against their own Electorate and not vote for Donald Trump on Dec. 19th. Now there are organizations within the government, along with major news outlets calling Trump’s win into question by pointing to the Russians.
This rumor has been making the circuit with CIA talking heads saying they think the US should revote. Ex-CIA operative Robert Baer said this:
“The Russians, it looks like to me did interfere in our elections. We’ll never be able to decide whether they changed the outcome, but I’ll tell you having worked in the CIA if we had been caught interfering in European elections, or Asian elections, or anywhere in the world, those countries would call for new elections. Any democracy would. I mean, I don’t see it any other way.”
“When a foreign country interferes in your election and the outcome is in doubt and the legitimacy of the government. I don’t know how it works constitutionally. I’m not a lawyer, constitutional lawyer, but I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that the Russians interfered, and I would like to see the evidence, because if the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again.”
On the other end of the spectrum, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, made the points about Russia’s fingerprints on the election versus Hillary’s server.
He brought this up in an interview with Fox News
“It’s not at all clear to me just viewing this from the outside that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation,” Bolton said. “The question that has to be asked is, why did the Russians run their smart intelligence service against Hillary’s server but their dumb intelligence services against the election?”
It’s not just Bolton calling that narrative into question either. The FBI drew a line in the sand. According to the Washington Post, a senior FBI counterintelligence official indicated the CIA’s ” direct and bald and unqualified” assessment of a Russian hack job was actually “fuzzy” and “ambiguous”
The FBI deals with facts and proof, and the CIA, on the other hand, often uses intelligence to infer what might happen. The FBI is law enforcement, while the CIA is cloak and dagger. If the FBI says there’s no proof, they’re the ones who operate in that environment day in and day out.
This is not an open-and-shut case though. The country needs to let the conversation play out because of the high stakes involved- the Presidency and determination whether a foreign entity did sabotage the election for political gain.
If the CIA’s view is correct, and a foreign country messed with the election, then new elections should happen. They must have integrity and verified as tamper-free. But if the FBI is correct and there’s no proof substantiating a hack job, then Donald Trump’s election is valid and the country should get on board.
But John Bolton’s point that this is a false flag falls means there could be a narrative that neither government agency would fully yield to. The elections were used as a political tool wielded by someone high in power to take a legitimate win by Donald Trump and cast doubt on it to spur new elections.