The retired spy, who remains anonymous, says he's provided his evidence to the FBI and they have requested additional information from him about his sources, findings, etc. Corn knows how to do this kind of reporting. He has spoken to a US intelligence official who says this retired spy has provided credible and valuable intelligence to the US government in the past. He is considered reliable. Corn's reporting gives me a high level of confidence this retired spy is not a crank. That doesn't mean he's right or even that he's not pursuing some unknown agenda.
Is any of this meaningful or serious or something we should be concerned about since Trump has a legitimate chance of becoming President in only a few months? The activities being alleged here are incredibly serious. I was out early arguing that the confluence of connections between Trump and the Russian government required close investigation. But these are very serious charges based on unnamed sources with uncertain motives. I take it as a given that most things you hear in the final days of a brutal election are either not true, unsubstantiated or wildly overblown. Speaking for myself, the claims are too serious and the evidence so murky, that I really can't make any judgments about them. I need a lot more evidence to believe what's being alleged here.
If such murky and shadowy claims were being made about my candidate on the eve of an election, would I be pleased? I would have to say no.
However, it now appears fairly clear that some arm of the Russian government conducted an aggressive campaign of cyber-espionage against one US political party and used the material to assist Trump's presidential campaign. Yes, maybe the US government is just making this up and maybe the non-governmental analysts who've come to the same conclusions are wrong. I've seen stranger things. But the Russian government is now barely making an effort to deny its involvement. Skepticism is always warranted when governments are involved. But dismissing the accusation of Russian involvement out of hand now seems more like denial than skepticism.
Such an effort to manipulate a US election by a hostile foreign government is all but unprecedented. For all the chatter about the subject, there's been very little wrestling with the implications of this in reporting on the US presidential election. When you put it together with Trump's close support of Russian government policies on almost every front, his financial ties to Russian, and the number of close advisors with close ties to Putin and his allies, it's more than enough to ring every alarm bell.
Think of it this way.
If Trump is advocating for Russia in the US political arena (he is), and Russia is conducting an espionage and disruption campaign on Trump's behalf in the US political area (highly likely), do I need to know if they're actually talking to each other while both these things are happening? I'm not sure I do.
Isn't this a much bigger deal than it has been made out to be?
If they are, if Russia has coopted or cultivated or compromised Trump that is a threat of the highest order. I can't go on the word of an unnamed retired spy whose identity we don't know, whose motives we can't interrogate and whose evidence we can't see. But I don't think I need additional evidence. What's been in plain sight for weeks, actually months, is more than enough to ring every alarm bell. And yet, with all the hints and arch remarks about Russia, the alarms have barely been rung.