The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha" moment, as President Donald Trump said he had fired FBI Director James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The President labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.
It has been several weeks since the New York Times reported that "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" led the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin "deployed computer hackers" to help Donald Trump win the election. But the evidence released so far has been far from overwhelming. We believe the information was actually leaked, and not hacked at all.
Before President Obama turns off the Oval Office lights for the last time, it's critical that he make good on his order for a definitive report from the full American intelligence community — not just the CIA and the FBI — on whether the Russian government hacked into U.S. cyberspace in ways that could have, or did, affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
When some of the nation's top spies joined each other on stage at a conference Thursday, the question of whether Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and state elections systems soon came up.
As Sen. Angus King pressed national security officials to open up about their ability to wage war over the Internet, he turned not to some think tank white paper to make his point, but a 5-decade-old film about the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship.
It's hard to avoid concluding that the confidentiality clause in Baltimore police brutality settlements is meant to protect those who govern the city, rather than those in whose name the city is governed. And in this regard — as, alas, in so many others — Baltimore embodies in an acute form one of the country's broader failures: the lack of accountability among our leaders for their extensive misbehavior.
In a public appearance in Baltimore on Thursday, National Security Agency director Keith Alexander forcefully defended surveillance methods that have come under scrutiny this year but acknowledged that some of them may need adjustments.