Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Russian Collusion and Active Measures
I spent most of my 30 years in the FBI dealing with counterintelligence. I have been retired for 20 years and have no inside information. My comments are based on facts reported in the news.
The idea that the FBI opened a counterintelligence case on facts that led them to believe President Trump was an agent of Russian Intelligence is an interesting one. What could have been the predication that was sufficient to set this in motion in the FBI? I think it is possible there was more to this than some short-sighted bureaucrats striking out against a person they regarded as a political enemy.
Consider the following:
- The Russian intelligence services have long engaged in “Active Measures,” which are sophisticated disinformation actions to influence or disrupt its enemies. For years, particularly during the Cold War, western counterintelligence services suspected that the KGB was sending us false (perhaps, “fake” is a better word here) defectors and recruitments in place.
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, a KGB officer who defected in 1961, was suspected of being such a fake defector. Among several things he reported that were believed to be false, was information that UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson was a KGB informer and an agent of influence of the Soviet Union.
- The Russian security services must have known that Christopher Steele was collecting information about Donald Trump for Hillary Clinton. It is impossible that a former British intelligence officer could have moved around Russia collecting information from Russians without coming to the attention of Russian security services. It is hard to believe that the Russians would have passed up such an opportunity to contribute disinformation to Steele’s dossier.
- The FBI has fought tenaciously to hide the information on which the Russia investigation was initiated. If the basis for the investigation was just the George Papadopoulos information and/or the Steele dossier, why would they fight so hard to keep it secret? Was there something much more secret that the FBI would not disclose?
- Several Republican Senators and Congressmen have seen the pertinent FBI documents and say that the basis for the investigation was sound. Would they say that if the basis was the Papadopoulos information and the dossier?
- When we try to find out something important in the intelligence world, the first place professionals go is to their defectors and recruitments in place. In an investigation of what the Russian intelligence services were doing in our election, wouldn’t the FBI and CIA ask their Russian defectors and recruitments? Could such a source be what the FBI is protecting?
- Is it possible the FBI had the Steele dossier and found it was confirmed by a recruitment in place or a defector? If the FBI had information from such a source, they might have believed it and that would be the sort of thing they would protect until the end. Anatoliy Golitsyn may have been just the first Russian intelligence agent to provide disinformation that a Western head of state was an agent of Russian Intelligence.
These facts suggest the Russians may indeed be behind the Russia story — not by colluding with President Trump, but by running a disinformation action and, perhaps, a fake defector or recruitment at the FBI and CIA. If so, they fooled CIA Chief Brennan and Director Comey and produced much more disruption than they could have imagined. Golitsyn’s information about Prime Minister Wilson was disruptive but, in the end, most counterintelligence professionals were not fooled. If the Russians have done such a thing now with the Trump collusion narrative, it surely has been the most damaging disinformation program that they ever pulled off.
The counterintelligence world is a complicated and multifaceted place. If the Russians were running a collusion disinformation effort, the situation called for the leadership of the FBI to exercise the greatest sophistication and act with great care. One would hope that senior FBI officials would be sophisticated enough not to be taken in by such a scheme. Director Comey may have known a lot about criminal investigation, but he was a rookie in the counterintelligence world. I doubt Comey was a person who would have enough self-awareness to recognize he didn’t know very much about counterintelligence and his chief advisors, McCabe and Strzok, don’t strike me as careful, sophisticated people.
Published in Law, Politics
Of course he is, Paul Manafort being an advisor to the Russian allied (puppet) President of Ukraine is fundamentally and substantively different than John Podesta lobbying for a project in Puerto Rico while the firm he represents was doing work for the Russian allies party in Ukraine.
Articulate the criminal act you believe Paul Manafort, with the help of the Russian government, engaged in to illegally alter the result of the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton
Have I claimed Manafort did so?
And what were Hillary’s tie to Uranium One?
Neil, are you really this poorly informed? You do access sources other than DNC-approved ones like CNN, right?
Yes, why do you ask?
I would ask because your profile says ‘classical liberal, conservative’ but you surely display a grand trust in government. Hard to put together.
As evidenced by?
Also, completely non responsive to what I asked.
For obvious reasons. You seem to demonstrate no awareness of what has been uncovered over the last two years regarding the role of the Democrats and their deep state allies in attempting to destroy the President.
Even the New York Times reported on this one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
No, I’m aware of what is claimed but I’m able to keep it in perspective.
No negative views or concerns expressed over all the abuse of power within the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the federal government.
And this is evidence the Clinton campaign had ties to the Russian government? Because the Secretary of State has dealings with Russians?
Dear God, do you people have any idea how ridiculous your attempts to draw equivalencies like this are?
Refusing to engage in whataboutism does not mean there are not problems with some things the FBI has done. For instance, I think it handle the Hillary Clinton email investigation horrendously. That said, it does not mean they were not right in being concerned with Trump campaign ties to Russia.
Alternate version. The Russians played their normal spy games to disrupt the election and the Democrats decided to weaponize it for their own purposes. There are many people involved in this with many different agendas all of which cared very little about Trump but more about their careers and goals. Some of these worked together purposefully, others just piggybacked their projects on other as the opportunist they were. The problem is that once the impossible happened and Trump won the scramble happened to save their backsides.
The only thing that seems proven to me is that the FBI, CIA and other lettered agencies may be more dangerous to the country than the Russian or Chinese, etc.
You asked what Hillary’s ties are to Uranium One. Don’t move the goalposts.
Context matters. The discussion was about campaign ties to the regime in Russia.
Moderator Note:
Redacted for rudeness.Redacted
By using the term whataboutism in a pejorative sense, you are engaging in ismism.
Hillary approved the sale to Russia, while Bill Clinton was literally dancing in Putin’s moneybooth for $500K. In the dictionary under bribery there is a picture of the Putin paying the Clintons. Is there anyone that doesn’t know this?
Let’s argue about if Hillary had ties to her own campaign (which somehow seems to be disputed); if she (and family members) had ties to Russia while she was in office (also seems to be disputed); and a campaign that hired people with ties to Russia triggered a fishing expedition. Then wouldn’t that suggest the agencies had information already on Hillary and on associates higher up (her boss) and lower down (themselves) they had an interest in burying ? And they then tried to find information on the other campaign ? That the reason for one investigation but not for the other is nothing more than CYA (with the stench of party politics) ?
The Secretary of State was one of many (8 I think) officials who could have objected to the sale. If I recall correctly, these matters were routinely (and in this case, specifically) handled by an Assistant Secretary of State with no actual input from the principle.
Two congressional committees wasted time looking into this, there is nothing there
One more time, in English please.
Which part I can help you to understand ?
From “Let’s” to “politics.”
Separating the sentences, each on a single line ?
I know I’m way late to this conversation, but before I go back and read all the posts, let me ask to be clear on this post. Joe, are you saying that (1) there is too much evidence to not believe that the FBI and CIA have conducted an investigation that showed Trump was indeed owned by Russia, and also that (1b) you can’t accept their conclusion, and so (2) you believe the FBI and CIA were set up with disinformers, (3) the existence and success of which would make the FBI and CIA look like fools for the next hundred years (and presumably all the 5 Eyes as well). Is that what Joe is saying? Pretty cool. If so…
Is this why MI6, et al, begged Trump not to release the unredacted FISA documents? And since he hasn’t he can blackmail the FBI and CIA and then still release the documents as his own October surprise in 2020? And the FBI and CIA hate being in this humiliating and defenseless position and hate Trump all the more for it?
Asking people to disprove a question you’re asking, instead of finding out for yourself, and then pretending that the truth doesn’t exist because no one responds adequately to whatever standard you’re setting for yourself, qualifies as trolling, not conversation.
If there’s stink on Trump due to Russia!, then there’s stink on Hillary due to Russia!, and it’s both relevant, I would argue more so due to Hillary’s prior roles in gov’t, and her husband’s, and the money paid to them by Russians!.
Hillary was SecState in 2009. In 2010, big Bill got paid half a million to speak, in Russia!
So in the time Clinton left the White House in January 2001 and when his wife stepped down from secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton indeed gave 13 speeches for which he made more than $500,000. Eleven of those occurred since January 2009, when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. Only two happened before then.
Schweizer suggests that Clinton’s speaking fees went up in 2009 in part because companies wanted leverage within Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
For example, New York Times reporters — building off of Schweizer’s work — found that while the State Department was involved in securing a uranium mining deal with Russia, investors in the company involved in the deal, Uranium One, gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Additionally, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Schweizer said, “Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”
So excluding Russia!, Bill – who was married to Hillary! – got paid the most money when she was SecState.
But hey. Whataboutism.
It is statements like this which suggest the argument being made is done to divert and confuse the issue by creating a false equivalency.
The implication is the Secretary of State was the approval authority for the purchase and, in this case, was actively working to secure the deal. Neither of those is true.
As I stated earlier, the State Dept was one of nine Departments or agencies involved in the process. The State Dept’s assessment of the sale was no different than the Defense Dept’s, Treasury, Commerce, or any other agency involved. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest Clinton was personally involved in the process at all. Such matters were normally handled at the Assistant Secretary level and there is no reason to believe this specific proposal was different.
The State Dept deals with with every nation on Earth. The husband of the Secretary of State giving paid speeches to those with business before the State Dept definitely raises legitimate concern of influence peddling but to make the case there was such requires a whole lot more than anyone has been able to present regarding Uranium One.