Russia mess: CIA ducks, accusations fly, questions dodged

“Well,” Coons began:

One of the things I was struck by, going back to August when I led a bipartisan trip to Central and Eastern Europe, was just how broadly the Russians have been involved in overtly and covertly undermining democratic elections throughout Europe.

That wasn’t a “yes.” Coons continued:

I have been briefed in a classified setting on some of the elements of this Russian hacking, and I’m looking forward to a more thorough hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, both a public hearing and a classified hearing.

That wasn’t a “yes,” either. More from Coons:

I am convinced that there was an intentional effort at the most senior levels of the Russian government to undermine confidence in our elections and, thus, to have an impact on the elections.

Still no “yes.” More:

But I do think there is more information that members of the Senate need to hear. And frankly, I wish that we would have some of this information released to the public, released before the electors meet on Monday so that we had a sense of how big and how deep this is.

There never was a “yes,” and the conversation moved on.

Coons spoke as news reports laid responsibility for alleged Russian hacking in the election directly at Vladimir Putin’s feet. Coons, who has spoken out frequently on the issue, did not offer anything to support of that contention. And neither did Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who as vice-chair of the Intelligence Committee is presumably as well informed as anyone outside the intel community, when she also appeared on CNN a short time later.

“Do you believe, senator, that President Vladimir Putin personally directed the U.S. election hacks?” asked CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

“Well,” Feinstein began:

Let me put it this way. We have done a number of briefings. They go back to the mid-summer. They involved the leadership of the intelligence committees. I’ve been on the committee for 15 years. I’ve been chair for six, vice chair for two.

That wasn’t a “yes.” Feinstein continued:

I’ve never seen a more specific top level briefing with statements of high confidence when questions were asked. It’s clear to me that this is a very serious situation. And I don’t want to see the relationship with Russia get worse. Let me predicate it with this.

That also wasn’t a “yes.” More from Feinstein:

I deeply believe that the president, soonest time possible, must get out the report that can go before the American people and the American people can read the unvarnished facts. Those of us that are on the Intelligence Committee are limited in what we can say.

Still no “yes.” More:

What I can say is what my belief is as a product of those briefings. And my belief is that this was a major covert influence campaign. It was foreign espionage on critical infrastructure, which is that which concerns American presidential elections, let alone all other elections.

Still no “yes.” More:

It’s this kind of behavior is not new to Russia. What is new is how this was done, who was involved, what the cut-outs were and how the whole thing was put together and what was released by the Russians and what wasn’t.

Still no “yes.” And finally:

Now, having said that, the question is could this much have been done without Mr. Putin’s knowledge or assent? And that’s the question. Is there an objective and, you know, strong and positive answer? Not necessarily. But it’s hard to believe that a country’s intelligence services could go ahead with this without the knowledge and assent of the leader, because this is the man that leads all things in Russia.

As Feinstein and Coons spoke, House Republicans were buzzing over the CIA’s decision not to brief the House Intelligence Committee on the latest information on the Russia allegations. Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes called the CIA’s move “unacceptable” and noted that the committee is “deeply concerned” with the intelligence agency’s “intransigence.”

Then, Thursday morning, Rep. Peter King, a Republican member of the committee, went to Trump Tower and was asked by reporters if the CIA had gotten back to him about Russia.

“No, they did not,” King answered:

I have not heard anything from the CIA. To me, what happened has been disgraceful. Whatever conclusion they want to come up with is one thing. There is no CIA conclusion. The CIA has repeatedly told us that they have no idea what the intent was, if there is an intent it’s to disrupt the election, create confusion and cast a cloud over the winner. And right now, certain elements of the media, certain elements of the intelligence community and certain politicians are really doing the work of the Russians. They’re creating this uncertainty over the election. This is several days before the Electoral College. I’ve been in briefing after briefing and even in public statements the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI have all said they don’t know what the motive is, if there is a motive it was to disrupt the election, not to prefer one candidate over the other. To suddenly have it appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times that the intelligence community…has concluded this. Who? Who in the CIA? Is is John Brennan? Is it some rogue person behind a desk somewhere? People in the intelligence community are using this against the president-elect of the United States and that is disgraceful.

As it has been from the beginning of the Russia election matter, it is hard to tell precisely what is going on. Clearly, some of the best-informed Senate Democrats were being more circumspect on television than CIA sources were being to some journalists, or perhaps Capitol Hill sources were being as they passed information on from CIA sources. For their part, Republicans were reduced to complaining that the story had gotten ahead of itself, which seemed hard to deny.

By the end of Thursday, Fox News’ Bret Baier referred to the Russia affair as “a huge circular firing squad in Washington.” That is the one part of the story that seems unlikely to change.