After the Washington Post (historically the house organ for the American national security state) published its latest spurious report on the sinister Russia-Trump connection, liberal pundits launched into a self-congratulatory frenzy. Their accusations and insinuations over the past 6 months about how Putin has endeavored to ‘install’ Trump and undermine the US electoral process were finally vindicated, or so they insisted.

Question: what is the factual basis for David Corn’s unbelievably inflammatory assertion that a “Russian covert op” has brought Trump to power? Answer: second-hand characterizations of unverified CIA claims as relayed by the Washington Post. So just to be clear, the Washington Post report in question doesn’t even contain any first-hand evidence. It wasn’t as if the CIA agent who possesses the motherload of Trump-Putin smoking gun evidence let his favorite Washington Post reporter have a look. Rather, the article Corn so breathlessly and uncritically promoted is based on summaries of briefings as relayed by unnamed “senior government officials,” which Marcy Wheeler speculates could simply mean Harry Reid. Reid’s unhinged rants with regard to Trump and Russia are already public knowledge because he’s spewed them publicly, so if he is the Washington Post’s sole source, this would be crucial context. (Other senators reportedly dispute the characterization.)

In other words, we don’t even have direct assertions from the CIA of explicit pro-Trump interference by the Russians. But let’s say we did have those assertions: the CIA puts out a press release tomorrow declaring that Putin launched a “covert op” to elect Trump. Even if that were to happen, if any agency on the face of Earth should not have its claims taken at face value, it’s the CIA. The CIA’s history is wretched and wicked. It should be abolished. The CIA are trained liars. It wasn’t so long ago that Democratic senators were accusing the CIA of lying when agents claimed they had not hacked into Senate staff computers, only to later admit that they had in fact done so.

And that’s to say nothing of the CIA’s hellish history: their “intelligence estimate” cited as justification for the Iraq War was fantastically and catastrophically wrong:

And if anyone knows how to interfere in the electoral processes of other nations, it’s the CIA.

But now prominent Democrats and their media allies like Corn want us to uncritically regurgitate purported CIA talking points, just because it’s supposed to reflect poorly on Trump. They drop any pretense of skepticism about the CIA, notwithstanding its horrifying track record, because their number one goal in life is to slam Trump. This is intellectual and journalistic malpractice — and on top of that it’s going to strengthen Trump, because it makes his ostensible opposition look like deluded morons. Is scoring short-term political points against Trump (a tactic likely to backfire anyway) really worth rehabilitating the CIA as an arbiter of accurate and reliable information? Is Corn so desperate to vindicate his laughable campaign reporting (based on innuendo fed to him by “spies” working for unnamed “corporate” outfits) that he’s willing to hold up the CIA as a shining example of truth and honor? Really?

Maybe Corn should go back and consult I.F. Stone, who maintained throughout his career that the CIA should not just be reined in or reformed, but abolished:

Also, the single-greatest co-conspirator in the massive coverup implied by Corn and kindred pundits would have to have been Barack Obama, who was adamant about the lack of Russian malfeasance before and after the election. If he was complicit in this scheme, shouldn’t Corn call for impeachment proceedings? There’s still time left to remove Obama from office if he has betrayed his oath in such an egregious manner.

Also, notice how this “hacking” story is conflating several disparate issues. They include: the hacking of John Podesta’s personal gmail account, the hacking of various DNC staffers’ gmail accounts, and the alleged hacking of two state voter registration databases (Arizona and Illinois.) You might also include the hack of the DCCC. All these could have been conducted by different actors. We have no necessary reason to conclude at this point that they all originated from the same “hacker.” That said, take the Podesta hack, which was probably the most prominent, at least down the stretch of the general election campaign. How was John Podesta’s email hacked? He apparently clicked a “phishing” link, the most ridiculously simple form of “hacking” ever, and probably not even describable by the word “hacking.” You certainly did not need sophisticated cyber warfare technology to access John Podesta’s email account. And yet, Podesta’s gmail troubles is being included in the array of incidents put forward as evidence of Russia somehow “hacking the election,” whatever that means:

All this is part of an insane hysteria pervading every sector of elite society in the wake of Trump’s election — especially the media. They’re continually working themselves into a lather, over-reacting to every Trump taunt, and literally driving themselves insane. I do mean literally, not figuratively. I sincerely think many of these people have lost their grip on reality, and they’re going to be completely steamrolled by Trump. They’ve rendered themselves ineffectual. I keep seeing Corn’s ilk giddily retweeting the likes of Evan McMullin and David Frum; I’m sure the burgeoning liberal-neocon alliance will work out super well.

And by the way, reflexively imputing nefarious motivations to every Russian actor is a form of xenophobia: Hillary Clinton ran one of the most xenophobic campaigns of all time, in fact — but her particular “phobia” was Russia, hence, Russophobia. Worth bearing in mind.