Counterintelligence Follies–What a Country!
One thing that seems to have passed without notice in the furore over Carter Page is the utter implausibility of the Russians using him in a high-level clandestine outreach to Donald Trump. No, implausible not because of Page’s fringe-status–though that would have probably been sufficient–but because of the fact that Page had been in contact with Russian intelligence operatives who were eventually arrested by the FBI.
We now know that Page was one of the individuals (“Male-1”) cited by the FBI agent in the complaint against the three Russians. Now the Russians might not have known for certain that Page was “Male-1” or anyone else cited in the complaint, but you can be damn sure that they would have identified every American the indicted Russians had been in contact with, and every one of them would have been under suspicion. Indeed, the detail from the recorded conversation involving Page and his background included in the report would probably have been sufficient for Russian intelligence to identify him.
So we are supposed to believe that less than two years after the indictment, the Russians would have thrown open the doors to Page, granted him an audience with Igor Sechin, and then proceeded to include him in a campaign to bribe an American presidential candidate? A guy who had already been interviewed by the FBI, and hence was at the very least in the crosshairs of US counterintelligence, and even possibly an asset thereof? A guy who had been involved in burning three of their operatives?
As. Effing. If.
Except, maybe, as part of an elaborate scheme to spread disinformation about Trump.
But there is no way that that anyone who had come in contact with the indicted Russian agents would have been used as part of a serious operation to bribe a US president.
If the FBI had actually entertained the possibility that the Steele dossier was legitimate (which, of course, they might never have done), they would have had to asked themselves: why would the Russians conspire with a guy that they had every reason to suspect was in league with, or compromised, by the US counterintelligence? That alone should have been sufficient either to discredit the dossier, or conditional on accepting the truth of the dossier, concluding that the Sechin offer was part of a disinformation scheme.
Stephen McIntyre makes an important observation about the dossier’s claims regarding the Page-Sechin meetings. Specifically, the first mention in the dossier (in July) of the meetings is lacking in specifics regarding (a) the “brokerage fee”, and (b) Page’s assurance that Trump would lift sanctions. Miraculously, the second mention of the meeting–in a Steele report three months after the alleged meeting–includes these details. Said details, of course, were included in the FISA application. And get this: the last Steele report that adds these apparently essential details was produced (or should I say “invented”?) 4 days before the FBI approached the court.
You know exactly what happened, don’t you? The FBI tells Steele: “This is all you got? We need more than this.” And like a short order chef, Steele starts cooking, hits the little bell with his spatula, and serves up a steaming pile of hash, made to order.
Which provides further evidence that the FBI knew all along that it was providing fiction to the FISA court. Unless, of course, you are going to choose option “B”–that the FBI were clueless, credulous morons. (There is no option “C”.)
In other counterintelligence follies, the NYT reported that the CIA was duped into paying a Russian $100,000 (and had agreed to pay $900,000 more) in exchange for stolen hacking tools and dirt on Trump. The story is sourced to the Russian, and to US officials.
The CIA denies, of course.
It is clear that the story about paying for stolen hacking tools is utter tripe. You don’t pay for what can be–and has been–copied, and what you already own. So if this did happen, it means that what was really bought was dirt on Trump, and that was the intent all along. If this is what went down, then no doubt that the arrangement broke down after the first meeting because the Russian delivered such obvious garbage that even anti-Trump CIA people realized it was worthless.
If this deal did occur, it’s also almost certain that the Russian approached the CIA because word was out that the agency was actively seeking information on Trump, and the Russian sensed an opportunity.
Whether this happened or not is actually far less interesting than why it was leaked. Maybe the Russian was the one who initiated the contact with the NYT, but somewhere along the line “US officials” corroborated it.
Now who would that be? My guess is that these are pro-Trump officials engaged in a clandestine war with elements in the CIA.
Like Yakov Smirnoff says–“What a country! America–I love it!“
“But there is no way that that anyone who had come in contact with the indicted Russian agents would have been used as part of a serious operation to bribe a US president”
I suspect you are overthinking it in a way that the Russians don’t. All they needed was an agent with access, which Page arguably was. What did they risk? A visa ban for the head of FSB?
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2018 @ 3:23 am
“We told them there is some movement, and we don’t like to … attack on this movement. They [the Russians] don’t accept our offer and denied, said there’s nothing happening”
…
Hassan said that as the carnage spread, the Russian liaison officer contacted him again, asking for a pause to collect the dead and wounded — from an attack he had earlier denied was coming.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/02/09/in-syria-russian-bad-faith-turns-fatal/
Here the cost to Russia was reportedly over 200 troops, yet they had ignored direct warnings. Let’s see if we can analyze this from the Russian counterintelligence perspective. Surely this was some elaborate scheme?
Comment by Ivan — February 11, 2018 @ 5:48 am
@SWP…Follow Q?
Comment by RW — February 11, 2018 @ 9:15 am
Hash cooked to order is probably the best description yet of the whole thing.
!) The RISA warrant was false – and, for some mysterious reason, was not verified, as is required by the Woods procedure:
a little bit on the Woods procedure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/comments/7vf42g/woods_procedure_forbids_presentation_of/
Woods Procedure was instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.
Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.
All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.
Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?
Robert Mueller.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures
https://www.justsecurity.org/39886/high-bar-fisa-warrant-monitor-carter-page/
2) Here are the AG Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collections.
There are threat assessments, preliminary investigations and full investigations. Included are guidelines for communicating with the White House.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/olp/ag-guidelines-10312003.pdf
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/1118/CLEANED116%20AG%20Guidelines.pdf
a) there is a text message that has appeared that “Obama wanted to be kept fully informed”
b) why did Comey go to the White House and present Trump with the fake Steele dossier? diGenova suggests that it was a threat
3) “Over the many months since he first cried “collusion” before a camera, one thing Adam Schiff and his fellow Democrats have never done – or conveniently avoided – is explain just what happened or provide any substantive proof or evidence of specifically what was done (or promised) during the campaign and election – and why. In a word, what was President Trump’s motive for colluding with the Russians? What did the Russians stand to gain from collusion with Donald Trump?”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/show_me_the_motive.html
4) Is the Steele Dossier Full of ‘Russian Dirt’ – or British?
“With text messages between US Justice Department (DOJ) conspirators Peter Strzok and his adulterous main squeeze Lisa Page now revealing that then-President Barack Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing,” it now appears that the 2016 plot to subvert the rule of law and corrupt the US organs of state security for political purposes reached the very pinnacle of power. To call the United States today a “banana republic” increasingly may be seen as a gratuitous insult to the friendly spider-infested nations to our south.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/09/is-steele-dossier-full-russian-dirt-or-british.html
5) Let up put the puzzle together – the idea was to keep Trump from getting elected. And, as noted by SWP, to drive him out of office, and failing that, to disrupt things as much as possible. And in the process, to protect Barry Soetoro and “her.” And towards this end, a “small group” within the FBI and DOJ at the highest level contributed their efforts.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/10/puzzle-pieces-former-asst-sec-of-state-robert-charles-discusses-the-fisa-review-court-may-explain-judge-ruben-contreras-recusal/
I suspected, and ongoing evidence has confirmed, the same FBI and DOJ “small group”, the team who worked diligently to ensure Hillary Clinton was never found culpable in the 2015/2016 email investigation, later worked on the 2016 Trump counterintelligence operation (FISA wiretapping surveillance etc).
That same “small group” within the FBI and DOJ were then given the task in 2017 of covering both prior operations: A) *Clear Hillary Clinton, and B) *Counterintel op on Trump.
To cover, cloud and protect the DOJ and FBI officials engaged in both operations, the “small group” was then reassembled within Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team as organized by James Baker.
Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc.
If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail. That is their purpose inside the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller probe.
That objective is why the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed Dec. 1, 2017, was the same attorney who responded to the Trump transition team inquiry. Brandon L Van Grack.
This “small group” are essentially around 20 career DOJ and FBI staff lawyers behind and beside the visible names we have recently become aware of. Including: Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, James Comey, James Baker, David Laufner, Mike Kortan, Jim Rybicki, Trisha Beth Anderson, John P Carlin, Mary McCord, etc.
Comment by elmer — February 11, 2018 @ 10:07 am
At this point, the Democrats have given up on this whole line of inquiry (Fusion GPS, Steele, Page, etc.) and just don’t care.
They are convinced the real smoking gun is Don Jr. talking to Natalia Veselnitskaya. They are expecting Mueller to unravel a conspiracy implicating everyone in the Trump campaign as a Putin stooge. All from that meeting.
Comment by Thomas Jefferson — February 12, 2018 @ 11:00 am
Not sure that the conspirators Strzok and Page were adulterous. I haven’t seen any corroboration, other than that it is repeated. No texts suggest sex, a la Anthony Weiner. Promoting that Strzok and Page were ‘adulterous’ DOES ‘explain away’ their close collaboration, should anyone notice. Until the sexts are published and pics of rendezvous surface, my guess is that the ‘adultery’ was a carefully crafted and useful legend. The banality of extramarital sex was a calculated deception from their real treasonous evil.
Comment by RW — February 12, 2018 @ 11:22 am
@RW – look, the shtooping between Strzok and Page is part of the story – in fact, just look at the googled results – CNN, WSJ, NPR, Business Insider, etc., all reported it matter-of-factly. Reliable sources all, right? The WSJ story is particularly fun – the last paragraph or so reflects that Lisa Page sent a text that said: “never text me again.”
Fox News headline refers to “lovers” and the story refers to “paramours.” The google result brings up “Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.” The article also ends with “don’t ever text me again.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=affair+between+Strzok+and+Lisa+Page&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-ab
🙂
Comment by elmer — February 12, 2018 @ 12:58 pm
Carter Page was a CIA asset. He pretty much has admitted as much. He certainly has no credentials that would compel Trump to bring him on the team for any permanent position. It is likely that he was planted and used as a way to justify covert surveillance via the FISA court. Ask him to make contact with the Trump team as tenuous as that may be. It doesn’t need to be strong. The FISA court wouldn’t have any clue to who is a CIA asset or who is a plant. Next, they concoct a completely ridiculous “dossier” that was written by the Clinton team (FBI/DOJ/CIA Clinton/Obama lackeys and old Clinton allies). I am looking at you Ohr’s and Cody Shearer. Then Strzok and Page help out. Find a compliant FISA judge. Hello Contreras. Everybody’s in place and finally, we can spy on the Trump campaign. This is all very obvious. It is just coming out slowly to tear down it slowly. They have to be arrested. The real question is what would drive all of these people to put their lives (their freedom that is) at risk. We know what the Clinton’s are covering up. Why would Obama take such a risk? Why would those other corrupt POS do it? Sure, they were confident HRC would win but would you take that chance without a significant payout? That to me is the more interesting question. Motive always is the more interesting subject. My guess is they all had a nice payout coming. That is also obvious to me.
Comment by mike dillon — February 12, 2018 @ 9:20 pm
@elmer…You are quite right. With all that good hearsay, who needs proof? Which reminds me, where is Christopher Steele these days? Has he been in the Caribbean lately?
Comment by RW — February 13, 2018 @ 2:34 pm
” We know what the Clinton’s are covering up.” We don’t know the half of it.
Comment by dearieme — February 14, 2018 @ 4:37 am