I guess it works like this at the Obama CIA: Whoever is in charge of blabbing "secret" intelligence assessments has only so much time, and he used it all up blabbing to the New York Times and the Washington Post. When a House committee wanted to know what was going on, well, you know, there's only so much time in the day:
The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after the CIA declined to provide a briefer for the session, Fox News is told.
Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.
But Fox News is told the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.
"It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement. "The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes."
Nunes also had given the agencies until Friday to address conflicts in the record.
There are really two separate but parallel issues here. One is the question of whether the Russians were in fact behind the hacking of John Podesta and others in the DCCC. If the intelligence community has hard evidence of that, it shouldn't be difficult for them to produce it.
The far more explosive question, of course, is motive. The CIA really touched off a firestorm when it decided to declare publicly that the Russians were doing all this because they wanted to help Trump become president. That gave Democrats and the media the talking points they want to - they hope - discredit the incoming administration. But there is nothing like a consensus on this question, with the FBI and even Obama's own intelligence chief being much more circumspect about what the Russians might have been going for - assuming they were behind this at all.
The CIA is trying to explain its position away by claiming the briefings Congress has been getting for months should suffice, but House members obviously don't feel the same. Nor should they. When you come out in public and ascribe the motive the CIA did this week - at Obama's behest, mind you - you have to realize that comes with an obligation to answer questions about why you concluded what you did.
As it stands, this whole thing looks like a play by Obama to cast suspicion on Trump's presidency even as he goes through the motions behind the scenes to help Trump with the transition. For all the criticism of Trump for supposedly not taking this seriously, the CIA needs to do the same. If you know something, let's see what you know. If you think something, let's hear your answers to questions about why. If you're going to run and hide like this, then you never should have said anything in the first place.
