Random Politics & Religion #22

Russiagate’s latest celebrity is a former Donald Trump associate named Carter Page. Page, who worked for Merrill Lynch in Moscow and speaks Russian, is a banker and investor who early in 2016 was a part of the amorphous group that was advising Trump on foreign policy. There is no evidence to suggest that he was ever an insider with the Trump campaign—quite the contrary. The Washington Post reports that he made several efforts to meet directly with Donald Trump but that his entreaties were rejected.

So why the fuss? Page appears to have been a target of Russian intelligence for a time, even though he had no sensitive information to give anyone and the presumed relationship appears to have ended long before the 2016 campaign. The possibility that Page might have been some kind of Moscow-controlled agent of influence close to Donald Trump has nevertheless excited Democratic Party critics who have been looking for some solid evidence of Russian government subversion of America’s electoral process. It has also provided some insights into the never-ending spy vs. counterspy battle, while suggesting that the Obama administration was not quite a wide-eyed innocent regarding FBI investigation of anyone plausibly linked to Trump.

Bear in mind that intelligence officers make a living and get promoted based on the “scalps” they acquire, to use the CIA expression, which means recruitment of possible sources of information. Page was and is somewhat of an expert on energy issues and, by virtue of his time spent in Russia, something of a Russophile. The combination would be very attractive to a Russian case officer looking for a new asset, so it is perhaps no surprise that Page bumped into Russian diplomat Victor Podobny at an energy conference in New York. The two soon established mutual interests in energy-industry developments and Page, apparently looking for business and investment opportunities, eventually passed some unclassified papers he had prepared to the Russian.

The passage of documents is a key case-officer objective. The assumption is that once documents are provided by the target and suitable noises are made about how they could result in wonderful business opportunities, this will lead to receipt of papers that are more sensitive. Then the prospective agent would be hooked, leading to his or her eventual acceptance of money or something in kind that seals the deal. If the transaction is completely illegal, so much the better, as the target would be disinclined to reveal the depth of involvement for fear of being exposed.

So Page passed papers to Podobny, not knowing that he was an intelligence officer. Pobodny in turn did not think much of his new prospect, telling a colleague in an intercepted phone conversation that Page was an “idiot” who “wants to earn a lot of money.” Pobodny observed that he would be reeled in by trading “favor for favor,” allowing the Russian to exploit him for whatever information of value he possessed before discarding him. The Page saga ended when diplomatic-covered Podobny was exposed and expelled as “persona non grata” from the United States in 2013. Page was interviewed by the FBI but it was determined that he had not compromised any confidential information.

But the story did not end there. Three years later, in July 2016, the FBI obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to monitor the communications of Page, who was at the time associating with the Trump campaign. It has been alleged that Page became a person of interest after meeting with some unidentified Russians, but the only evidence that has surfaced possibly relating to that is a claim that in July 2016 he met with Igor Sechin, chief executive of the energy company Rosneft and a reported Putin crony. Page has reportedly denied that the meeting even took place. The Washington Post also claims that Page gave a speech in Moscow “harshly critical of the United States’ policy towards Russia.”

The FISA warrant was presumably granted based on that visit. As a former intelligence officer, I can attest that the recruitment of someone who is close to a potential presidential candidate in any country is a prize worth having. It is referred to as an agent in place or an agent of influence, but its value is that it provides a possible insight into what another foreign leader actually intends to do. It is far more valuable than a stack of emails. So the possibility that Russian intelligence realized what potential access Page might provide and acted upon it should not be dismissed. And, of course, it is also possible that nothing of the sort happened, that the Russians did not realize what they might have and slept through the entire Page visit.

In either case, we might someday know what happened or possibly not. But one other thing that is clear is that the Obama administration did not hesitate to go after someone presumed to be close to GOP candidate Donald Trump based on evidence that may or may not have been compelling. Page himself denounced the FISA warrant as “unjustified, politically motivated government surveillance.” Bear in mind that the FISA court tends to approve most surveillance requests, not making much effort to challenge the executive branch.

The arguments that President Obama and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice have been making, asserting that they knew nothing about politically charged and highly sensitive FBI investigations are, of course, nonsense. Rice’s request for the identities of Americans appearing on transcripts of communications intercepts reveals that there was very much a heightened sense of the political dimensions of what was taking place. And she would have undoubtedly conveyed as much to her boss, suggesting yet again that the latest chapter in Russiagate may turn out to be Obamagate after all.

No.

First paragraph:
If you follow the link it goes deeper into the whys of it.

Will Russiagate Become Obamagate?

Because people hate sources.

Chanti made a deal with the Washington Post that every time she post that links to a WP article she gets a dollar...

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has been in the news recently because a source in the intelligence community informed him that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was behind the "unmasking" of Trump campaign associates in intelligence reports, which may have led to other members of the intelligence community leaking classified information to the press for partisan political reasons.

Nunes has been criticized for the way he handled and presented this information—not without reason—as he rushed to the press with it before handing it over to the rest of the intelligence committee. As a result, Nunes has recused himself from the intel committee's Trump-Russia probe, but he's still looking into Rice's unmasking and the questionable conduct of the intelligence committee more generally. However, Democrats on the committee have now seen the information that Nunes has, and no one denies that Rice is behind the unmasking.

CNN responded to the Rice revelation in a way that was frankly discrediting for a respectable news organization. They refused to cover it, except to have their reporters overtly discredit it and even called it "false" in chryons. (See plenty of examples of the bizarre way they handled this story here.) Even MSNBC, ostensibly much more liberal than CNN, treated the Rice story as legitimate.

After ignoring and downplaying the Rice story, CNN began heavily pushing a story Tuesday night that contradicts Nunes: "CNN Exclusive: Classified docs contradict Nunes surveillance claims, GOP and Dem sources say." Well, that sounds like it could be a big deal. Let's look at the story, shall we?:


This story, then, is sourced completely anonymously and stands in direct contrast to Rep. Nunes' public assertions that he's seen information about Rice's conduct that he finds alarming. Further, the claims that Rice did nothing "unusual or illegal" are tendentious at best. Nunes has been consistent all along that no evidence he's yet seen would allow him to conclude what Rice did was illegal. (Trump, as he's wont to do, has muddied the waters by saying he "thinks" Rice comitted a crime, but Nunes has been clear on this.) Nonetheless, when someone in Washington defaults to the defense that what they did wasn't illegal, it's often a sizable tell they're defending some other abuse of power.

As for judging whether Rice's behavior was "normal and appropriate," without knowing what Rice actually did, that's in the eye of the beholder. There are many standard operating procedures in Washington that ordinary people find pretty abhorrent and could result in political consequences if exposed. If you believed Trump and/or his associates are not above doing Putin's bidding—as many partisans and members of the media apparently do—perhaps you'd think it was "normal and appropriate" to be surveilling his associates. Trump supporters who note the lack of hard evidence of Trump-Russia connections might understandably argue that using surveillance powers to keep tabs on the opposing party and incoming administration is the stuff of banana republics.

It doesn't help that CNN's thesis—that Rice did the unmasking, but it's perfectly normal—just happens to be the exact talking point that former Obama administration officials were pushing when the story broke last week. Worth noting: CNN national security correspondent Jim Sciutto is the first byline on this story. Sciutto is also a former Obama administration official, and here's what he said about the Rice story when it broke last week: "This appears to be a story largely ginned up, partly as a distraction from this larger investigation."

It's not that I think Sciutto is incapable of good reporting, but asking me to choose between Devin Nunes asserting on record he's seen abuses of power, and Sciutto first dismissing Nunes out of hand and later refuting Nunes with anonymous sources making subjective claims, well, that isn't much of a choice at all. CNN provides zero new facts, and no source is on record and available for other reporters to question. Maybe more evidence will emerge later to vindicate CNN's reporting here. For now there is very little there there, and what there happens to be there, is little more than a convenient story for congressional Democrats to attack Nunes with:


You'd think CNN would be more cautious given that there have been plenty of anonymously sourced stories on Trump that have fallen apart or otherwise been justly criticized for not exercising due diligence, as I noted in a recent issue if THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Along these lines, CNN's story on the "dossier" claiming, among other things, Trump had trysts with Russian prostitutes—and which Scuitto also had a hand in writing—was pretty justly criticized. CNN's reporting lent credence to easily confirmable allegations that turned out to be false, even as they played up anonymous intelligence sources saying the dossier should be "investigated seriously." In fairness, CNN later reported "US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier," but that was also completely anonymously sourced.

The media writ large, and CNN in particular, have some credibility issues at the moment. And one way to rebuild credibility would be to stick to the realm of impartial reports with on-the-record sources and verifiable facts. Instead, the default position of CNN and other media outlets seems to be to downplay or dismiss stories that might benefit Trump. And they downplay these stories when it means giving Susan Rice—a woman who has repeatedly, demonstrably told untruths about major national security issues for no other obvious reason than insulating President Obama from the political consequences of their collective, even deadly, incompetence—a seemingly incomprehensible amount of deference.

Actually where I live they have a furry convention every year...and I stay as far away as humanly possibly....

So, you are denying the whole thing.

Got it.

I don't even know what you think I'd be denying lol. It's your backup response to throw some non sequitur argument out like a smoke bomb.

Meanwhile in impeachment land:

What the hell is a prediction professor anyways...

Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University, reached meme-status last fall for predicting long before anyone else that Trump would win, using a formula based on the popularity of the party in control of the White House that accurately predicted the eight previous presidential elections. Now Lichtman wants everyone to pay attention to the rest of what came through his crystal ball — that Trump will now be impeached.



http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-impeachment-professor-allan-lichtman-237181

I don't even know what you think I'd be denying lol. It's your backup response to throw some non sequitur argument out like a smoke bomb.

You never did, and actually actively refuse to, answer the questions I give you

I didn't realize we had to answer every stupid question anyone ever throws out here to avoid being accused of trolling...

in that case my answers are

always, never, sometimes, maybe, daffodill, springtime, sunshine, daisy, eternity, infinity, forever, yesterday, today, tomorrow, next thursday, the square root of infinity, the sound of one hand clapping, a tree falling in the woods with no one around to hear it, what happens if a karma runs over a dogma, there's a hole in the bucket dear liza dear liza, the number of licks it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop, the shortest distance beween two points, circle, spoon, rectangle, forrest, Capricorn, Sagatarius!

and alcohol.

My answer: All of the above. Works every time !

unless it's my boss then I go with
You betcha! and No problem!
or
it's not finished yet, but I will get right on that....




I'm working on that right now actually!