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
Yes, Hillary’s emails is a separate and distinct crime from the DNC ‘matter’.
Do investigators need to physically examine a server to investigate hacking?
Did the DNC have only one server? Highly unlikely. I’m sure there were at least a rack or two.
Was it even known which specific server was accessed?
Good question! And guess who appointed all the FISC judges, and thus must be in charge? The answer is Chief Justice John Roberts. Besides criticizing PDJT for complaining publicly about certain judicial decisions, Judge Roberts has done zero (to my knowledge) to enforce FISA rules for seeking warrants. You would think potentially misleading FISC judges would be of grave concern to the Chief Justice.
Not that any of these people will ever be charged with anything.
Heck, we have a long verified string of illegal leaks, and none of those people will ever face consequences.
Any illegal activity is condoned if it means bringing down Republicans or protecting Democrats and their pals.
I don’t know what the penalties are for failing to follow the required FISA process steps and then attesting that they have been followed but since these are ex parte proceedings this seems to be perjury and the felons should be charged.
I would just like to say thank you to the OP @joewolfinger for posting a serious piece, based on his deep, unique, and very special experience and knowledge. It is also great that he has participated in the exchange of ideas following his post. What is ashame is the obvious attempt to usurp the conversation by a certain individual (if it is just one individual), thereby making what should be an easy to follow 50 comment thread into a difficult 120 comment ramble.
Yes my bad, trying to work and comment at the same time missed Bob was referring to the “other” (D) server issue.
Still had fun making the comment, just treat it as a stand alone comment not a part of the thread.
“You can’t handle the truth”, did I really write that?