“Bigger than Watergate.” That’s how Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reacted to news that FBI director James B. Comey had sent a short letter to various United States Congressional committees on October 28 to inform them that the FBI is reopening its investigation into former secretary of state and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for her official correspondence at State.
The FBI had previously cleared Clinton of criminal liability after a massive leak of data and communications was stolen by hackers and released by WikiLeaks.
Now, less than 10 days before the election of a new president, the FBI has dropped this on the public in a manner that suggests the former secretary may be liable to prosecution after all. Let’s not pretend the public isn’t conditioned to believe that the FBI doesn’t “investigate” unless there has been “wrongdoing.”
Trump may be right about WikiLeaks being bigger than Watergate, but not for the reasons he’d like us to believe.
Watergate was about the Republican party stealing information from the Democratic party with the aim of crippling the Democrats’ chances of victory in the 1972 presidential election.
Wikigate involves the engagement of foreign actors in a hacking/leaking operation to influence the 2016 presidential campaign.
Certainly, Julian Assange, the Australian founder of Wikileaks, which is largely responsible for disseminating the stolen data and communications from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic party officials, including Clinton, doesn’t want Clinton to be president.
• “She’s a war hawk with bad judgment who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people”
• “Hillary lacks judgment and will push the United States into endless stupid wars which spread terrorism”
• “Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.”
These are not quotes from Trump, but from Assange, published on observer.com over the summer.
In July, credible evidence emerged to support the contention that Russian hackers stole the data and leaked it to WikiLeaks.
In a July 27 article entitled Following The Trail Of Stolen Emails From Russia To WikiLeaks, the New York Times made the case that hacker Guccifer 2.0 was responsible for the initial release of stolen DNC documents that led to the resignation of committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The Times article and by various “cyber-security experts” identified Guccifer 2.0 as an agent of the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency.
In fact, not only has Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the DNC cyber-attack, he’s admitted to giving the hacked data to WikiLeaks.
Former National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden tweeted about the “significance” of the documents: “Hacktivists, possibly state-sponsored, now demonstrating intent – and capability – to influence elections.”
Russia remains the primary U.S. antagonist in the Middle East. It is unthinkable that any U.S. presidential candidate would laud a foreign president while verbally eviscerating his own.
It seems treasonable for a candidate to say, as Trump has, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Clinton’s server.
It is at least as bizarre that a significant portion of Trump’s base, who characterize themselves as Reaganites, would embrace Putin.
Wikigate brings to mind another Machiavellian episode in the history of American presidential campaigns known as the October Surprise.
Gary Sick wrote about it in the NY Times on April 15, 1991 about a deal between the Reagan campaign and Iran over the release of 52 American hostages in return for arms. The key accusation that then Central Intelligence Agency director William Casey was instrumental in orchestrating the secret meetings with Iran in Paris and Madrid has never been adequately disproven. The House October Surprise Task Force, according to New York Times, “did not locate Mr. Casey’s 1980 passport, and one of the three Casey 1980 calendars the task force did obtain – a looseleaf version – was missing a few crucial pages.”
Two years into his presidency Reagan, in his 1983 “Star Wars” speech, promised that the U.S. would develop the capability to carry out warfare from space in order to counter what he claimed was a massive and disproportional buildup by the Soviets of offensive nuclear weapons.
It would be naive to assume that the weaponization of space has not gone ahead with the utmost vigour. Any such endeavours would depend upon a nation’s technological capability to develop advanced research, command and communications systems that require that nation to secure its own cyberspace.
Indeed, infringement of one nation’s cyberspace by another’s hackers and spies is tantamount to an act of espionage and war.
The ironies and blatant contradictions make a mockery of this presidential election cycle.
news@nowtoronto.com | @nowtoronto
