Streetwise Professor

May 25, 2019

Why the Squealing In DC?: The Deep State is in Deep Sh*t

Filed under: Military,Politics,Russia — cpirrong @ 11:01 am

That loud squealing you hear coming from points east is not the sound of 1000s of hogs being scalded: it is the collective scream of the governing class panicked at the Barr investigation, and in particular, at Trump’s instruction to the intelligence agencies that they declassify large amounts of material relating to the origins of the Russia investigation. Not surprisingly, among those protesting most strenuously, like the slimy, sanctimonious James Comey and the Neanderthal-browed (hell, Neanderthal period) John Brennan, are those in the gravest legal jeopardy.

In other words, the Deep State is in Deep Shit, and lashing out in response.

One of the attacks leveled at Trump and Barr is that this investigation will reveal the identity of a super-secret CIA source close to Putin.

Is that the best you all can do? Really?

First, color me skeptical that any such source exists.

Second, even assuming that he did exist . . . he has long since been compromised. Obviously.

Christopher Steele spread around the dossier in mid-2016 like a crack whore spreads around the clap (apologies to crack whores, and to the clap). Russian intelligence therefore would have known about it long before it made it onto Buzzfeed–or into the set-up “briefing” Comey gave Trump in January, 2017. Generously assuming the whole thing was (a) not a Russian disinformation operation in the first place, and (b) not a figment of Steele’s imagination, the dossier’s disclosure that an individual or individuals present at or better yet a participant in conversations with Putin and other high-level Russians (e.g., Sechin) was blabbing to western spooks (ex- or active) would have unleashed the leak investigation from hell, without the legal niceties that protect leakers in the US.

Any source would have been identified, and dealt with. Not necessarily with extreme prejudice: indeed that is an unlikely outcome. It would have been far more useful to turn said source to get information on the CIA and to spread disinformation.

Indeed, the CIA (were it even marginally competent) would have realized that the dossier had burned the source and made him not just useless, but dangerous to the CIA.

So spare me the wailing laments about outing a CIA mole in the Kremlin. If (and that’s a big if) the mole existed, he is no longer a useful intelligence asset to the US, nor can he be any more endangered than was 3 years ago.

Further, the whole “we’d love to tell you but then we have to kill you” pose is rather convenient, no? After all, if there was a super secret CIA squirrel in the Kremlin who could prove that Trump conspired with the Russians, wouldn’t The Resistance just be dying for that information to come out, and to be validated? After all, it would seal their case against their arch-enemy.

How stupid do they think we are, that we would believe that the identity of an already-burned source is so sacrosanct that they would sacrifice their vendetta against Trump (whom they claim is a mortal danger to national security) rather than reveal it?

Please. The strident protests actually undermine the veracity of collusion claims.

I have always been deeply ambivalent about the CIA. I recognize the need for an intelligence apparatus. I further recognize the need for secrecy for it to operate effectively. But I also recognize that this secrecy provides a cover for it to engage in nefarious actions intended to implement its own agendas, which are often malign. Secrecy also makes it almost impossible to hold it accountable for its litany of failures.

There is a colorable case that the Neanderthal and his minions engaged in numerous nefarious acts in 2016 and 2017. Getting to the bottom of that, and holding those responsible for any such acts accountable is far more important to the health of the Republic than protecting some putative source in Putin’s inner circle (who, if he existed, was hopelessly compromised years ago).

Let the investigation continue, the documents be declassified, and the chips fall where they may. The prospect of which is exactly why the hogs are squealing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 Comments »

  1. @SWP…Apropos of the general topic, I have different views on some of the actors in this saga.
    1) I think Steele was a prop. The FBI paid him $40,000 for the dossier, which they already knew about because they (DNC/PerkinsCoie/Fusion GPS) composed it. Wht pay for information you laready prepared and composed for the informant? That the FBI paid for it laundered its provenance, that is, is made it appear to be outside research. And by FBI I mean a certain element of the FBI. Not all of the FBI was part of the cabal.
    2) FBI Director Comey is everything anyone says about him: sanctimonious, arrogant, pompous, pick your word. But he was not part of the cabal. In fact, his testimony (January and June 2018)has already exposed Lynch, Brennan, Clapper and a few others. Lynch gave her testimony on December 18, 2018 that she didn’t tell Comey to call it a ‘matter’. But Comey’s memos will prove her to be lying. Ditto with Brennan saying that he didn’t want to include the dossier in the briefing, that Comey did. Comey kept contemporaneous memos, and they were up-classified so none of these bad actors could adjust their testimony. Remember when that mephitic Feinstein leaked Glenn Simpson’s testimony, then she claimed she didn’t mean to do that but she had a bad cold and her cold medicine made her do it? Yes, that happened in January 2018. She leaked that testimony so that the other bad actors could position themselves. Even with her penchant for Chinese spies, she should get time for that leak. Well, lesson learned, up-classify the good evidence!
    Back to Comey: he will be the witness to the convictions of many of the bad actors. Same with Rod.
    3)From the first mention of the Page-Strzok texts, I loudly doubted their ‘lovers’ status. I posted those doubts then, on many sites. For starters, there have been no sexts, “you were great last night” texts, restaurant or hotel tabs, no receipts, and no divorces (and no interviews with the cheated spouses…where is the MSM and TMZ anyway?). Those are the exhibits A, B, etc, of why I doubted the ‘lovers’ proposition.
    And I suggested then the reason for that ‘lovers’ rumor. They worked with and for some people who were part of the cabal. But they worked among and for some people who weren’t party to the treason. So what would they do if someone asked why they were in constant contact via text? OK, one answer they could give would be “Oh, we are committing treason.” Probably not their style. And some goodytwoshoes might tell, or be in a position to stop the op.
    Much better is this sample communication: “Listen, we are having an affair. Just some suburban sinning. Keep it under your hat, OK?” [wink][wink} So what do you think a straight co-worker would do? Probably nothing.
    But McCabe didn’t need the ‘lovers’ legend. He knew what they were working on, night and day, and he knew there was no nookie. However, Comey was another matter. McCabe had to keep Comey out of it. McCabe/Page/Strzok probably felt the same way toward Comey that everyone else does now, only from the other side of the story. So the ‘lover’ legend worked on the possibility of Comey hearing something.
    4) Wray is another character being maligned incorrectly. Watch his testimony about evidence of illegal spying on Trump. You can probably find it on YouTube easily. Watch carefully. He warns about having to be careful with his answers because there is an ongoing investigation. Did you hear what he said? An ongoing investigation!
    When he is asked if he has any evidence, he hesitates, takes a deep breath and says, “I don’t have personally any evidence of that sort.” Key word: personally. Wray is working against the cabal.
    5) Only fair to include Mueller here. Also maligned, I think he has been working against the cabal since he started. For example, Manafort was another plant. Mueller raided him to get evidence of that, it was never against Trump, it was against Manafort’s Deep State connection.
    6)George Papadopolous is a fraud. The Mueller report tells you that. GP latches on to the Trump campaign goes over to the U.K. and constantly tells the Trump camp “Hey, I’ve got some Russians here who are just dying to meet you. And the campaign always rebuffs him. You can see him waving his arms for attention, and you can hear the dismissive responses. On the last brush off, he quits. My speculation id that he was planted on the Carson campaign by McCain to beef up his resume, then switches to Trump with one intention: to dirty up Trump with a confidential meeting with Russians. It doesn’t work, almost as if the Trump campaign knew in advance. Which is only my suspicion.
    When and if this story is ever completely told, I think there will be some surprises regarding who were the bad guys and who were the good guys.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — May 26, 2019 @ 1:59 pm

  2. If the Praetorian Guard wish to overthrow the Emperor they must ensure he dies.

    That is why I’ve always assumed that in the end they’d shoot Trump. I wonder why they haven’t yet. I think we may take it that any reluctance to do so is not a matter of moral scruples.

    What form might a “shooting” take? A plane crash, perhaps. Surely not the poison that was tried out in Salisbury, England?

    Comment by dearieme — May 26, 2019 @ 3:23 pm

  3. @Richard Whitney–More later. But I would refer to Steele as a tool, rather than a prop. Multiple meanings of “tool” fit!

    Comment by cpirrong — May 26, 2019 @ 3:33 pm

  4. @Richard Whitney. Interesting hypotheses. My operative principle right now is that everyone involved 2016-2018 is a bad guy until proven otherwise. I will say that I am certainly not willing to give Comey anything close to a pass right now, based on the evidence in the public domain. For example, I think he is perfectly capable of putting lies in his contemporaneous memorialization of conversations. Wray seems to be keeping his options open. I don’t trust him, not least because someone like him usually puts the institutional interests of the organization he heads a close second to his personal interests (which are also highly and positively correlated with the institutional interests).

    The playing out of the prisoners’ dilemma among this cast of rogues is the best chance to learn something approximating the truth. But to check my optimism, I re-watched Rashomon last night.

    Comment by cpirrong — May 27, 2019 @ 3:32 pm

  5. You can’t go wrong with Kurosawa.

    Comment by Christopher L Hunt — May 28, 2019 @ 4:46 pm

  6. Assange was in on taking Trump down too, the hacking of the DNC was done by Obama & Company with Assange’s part made too look like he was working for Trump.

    Comment by Joe Walker — May 28, 2019 @ 7:52 pm

  7. @Joe Walker…I agree. The Assange release was portrayed as anti-Clinton, but it was innocuous nothingness. It very well may be that Hussein’s crew did the ‘hack’, using harmless e-mails, and then used a compliant MSM to make it look like Trump had conspired. Why didn’t Hussein charge Assange before, and why pardon Manning? It is of a piece with Hussein targeting the military. The only time he ‘celebrated’ a member of the military is when he had a traitor’s parents in the Rose Garden. The ‘Hussein targeting the military’ and ‘Trump protected by the military’ is playing out in several ways: Petraeus, Flynn, Rogers, and more.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — May 29, 2019 @ 8:27 pm

  8. @SWP…Let me add one more observation/speculation to my list: Rod Rosenstein will be nominated to the Supreme Court while Donald Trump is President.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — June 2, 2019 @ 6:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress