My latest Counter Propa article explains the reality of Russian hacking. This narrative is only based on “highly confident” intelligence; nothing more. Democrats in Congress pushed for sanctions and demand Russia probes based only on the high confidence, not certainty of the FBI, CIA and other agencies. The NSA isn’t even highly confident and has only “moderate confidence” in the Russian hacking narrative. Furthermore, Clinton’s campaign did enough, from FBI probes to Correct the Record trolls, to lose the election, even if Russia indeed hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. In fact, as I explain in Counter Propa, the lives of millions of people in the U.S. and around the world could be affected by decisions made from assertions, and not fact.

When people are being forced to resign for simply speaking to a Russian ambassador, we’ve reached McCarthy Era politics once again in America.

While I view President Trump to be a political adversary in terms of value system, the biggest adversaries of all progressives should be a DNC and Democratic Party calling for a renewed Cold War. It seems leading Democrats skipped U.S. history in high school and forget the unintended consequences of beating the war drums with Russia. The new McCarthy Era in American politics is highlighted by a Hill piece titled Dem senator: Russian hacking may have been ‘act of war’:

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) on Thursday said Congress needs to consider whether Russia’s cyber campaign during the U.S. presidential election was an act of war.

Shaheen made the statement during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday morning exploring the Pentagon’s strategy to deter and respond to malicious acts in cyberspace.

The intelligence community released an unclassified report in January concluding that the Russian government engaged in a cyber and disinformation campaign during the election to undermine American democracy and damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and had established a preference for President Trump.

The U.S. government does not currently have a definition of what constitutes cyber warfare. A sweeping defense policy bill passed last December directs the Trump administration to spell out what actions against the U.S. in cyberspace may warrant a military response within the year.

Shaheen asked the panel of experts and former officials testifying before the committee “what kind of message” it sends to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world — including America’s allies — if the U.S. does not respond to the election hacks.

… Shaheen was among a bipartisan group of senators who introduced legislation to further sanction Russia for its election hacks and other aggressive actions in January, before Trump took office.

Trump has signaled he would like to establish warmer relations with Moscow in the wake of the election hacks, opening him up to criticism from Democratic and some Republican lawmakers.

Fast forward from 1950 to 2017, and Democrats are the hawks and a Republican president wants better relations with Russia.

This doesn’t mean Trump’s policies are good, it simply means Democrats are threatening a renewed Cold War based on “high confidence” reports.

Would you invest your life savings into an investment you were highly confident wouldn’t tank?

By the way, the NSA only has “moderate confidence” in Russian hacking.

As stated in New York Magazine, “The CIA and FBI have high confidence in these findings, the NSA has moderate confidence.”

MSN reports NSA Has Moderate Confidence in Russia Hacking Report.

The Daily Beast writes “The CIA and FBI have ‘high confidence’ that it was to destroy Clinton and promote Trump; the NSA has only ‘moderate confidence’ in that assessment.”

As for WikiLeaks, here’s how confident U.S. intelligence is on the WikiLeaks connection. Please do a word search for “WikiLeaks” or “Julian Assange” within the 13 page DHS and FBI Russian Hacking Report.

Funny how the same intelligence agencies claiming grandiose Russian hacking operations don’t mention a word about WikiLeaks.

The disclaimer of this report is amusing and states “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise.”

This report also doesn’t say why Russia would want Trump over Clinton.

Why haven’t America’s intelligence agencies explained how Russia would benefit from Trump?

The Washington Post highlights the uncertain nature of U.S. intelligence findings in the following quote:

Therefore, is it responsible for Senator Shaheen or anyone to label WikiLeaks emails a Russian act of war?

In addition, the intelligence community has provided only an assessment; not anything concrete in terms of categorical claims.

Did Senator Shaheen even read the intelligence community’s Russian hacking report?

The hysteria over Trump officials meeting with Russian diplomats could lead to unforeseen consequences. These repercussions are highlighted in a New York Times piece from 1993 titled Russia Drops Pledge of No First Use of Atom Arms:

Gen. Pavel S. Grachev said at a news conference at the Defense Ministry that the doctrine ruled out the use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that had signed the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, unless they were allied with a nuclear-armed country.

“As for those states that have nuclear weapons, the doctrine says nothing,” General Grachev said. He declined to elaborate further, but that omission in itself confirmed reports that Russia would not reiterate the pledge against first use of nuclear weapons made in 1982 by Leonid I. Brezhnev, who was the Soviet leader.

…In any case, the United States never made a similar pledge, arguing that the threat of using nuclear weapons was what made them useful as a deterrent.

…The doctrine amounts to a political statement of guiding principles for the Russian Army for a transitional period. Basically, it confirmed what was already evident — that the main source of military danger to Russia was no longer any single nation or alliance, but small regional conflicts, of which about 30 have already broken out on Russia’s borders. Accordingly, Russia will focus what resources it has on rapid-deployment forces rather than huge land armies, which it can no longer afford.

Therefore, Democratic saber-rattling could lead to a nuclear conflict and this isn’t hyperbole. America, like Russia, doesn’t have a “No First Use” policy on nuclear weapons. It’s time for Democrats to stop defending Clinton’s loss and focus on the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015, or policies that actually help Democratic voters.

I explain my thoughts about Democrats calling WikiLeaks emails an “act of war” in the following H. A. Goodman YouTube segment.

The only way to defeat Trump in 2020 is to stop focusing on a renewed Cold War. This controversy isn’t Hillary Clinton’s FBI criminal probe, an investigation that found Clinton to be careless with Top Secret intelligence. Whereas Clinton says she deleted Yoga emails and used a server for convenience, the Espionage Act is an actual law; intent was the only reason Clinton wasn’t charged. This new McCarthyism is based on nationalism, combined with indignation among Democrats that Trump won the election. Unforeseen consequences take place when highly confident (uncertain) intelligence cause nations to act irresponsibly. Democrats should be more responsible and realize that no amount of Red Scare politics will defeat Trump. Only a focus on progressive policies will defeat the GOP and this is something Democrats have yet to embrace. With leaders like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, highly and even moderately confident intel is being used to discuss further escalation with Russia.

Is this good for America?

Is this good for the world?

H. A. Goodman is the creator of Counter Propa and the thoughts above are inspired by his new publication. Follow Counter Propa on Twitter and Facebook