This woman is a former sub-cabinet political appointee in the Obama Administration's DoD where she dealt with Russian policy matters. At some point in the recent past she was de-briefed (cut off) from access to the various kinds of compartmented information she had been given as a requirement of her job. When that occurred she signed some papers in which she accepted the responsibility to protect the secrecy of that information.
She has recently been on a number of MSNBC shows freely telling people of the extent and success of present and ongoing US SIGINT (COMINT) operations against Russia. She stated on global TV last night and this morning that the US has "very good intelligence on Russia," and that the US successfully intercepts Russian diplomatic communications to include the encrypted telephone communications of Russian diplomats to include the ambassador to the US.
She has stated freely on TV that she and a group of associates from the Obama Administration went to congressional staffers who did not have access to these COMINT products and urged them to seek to gain access to them. This is in basic contradiction to the elementary principle in government security that access to particular products should be dictated from above based on necessity rather than sought from below. In fact an expressed desire to gain greater access is usually something that arouses suspicion about an individual.
It is likely that her disclosure has damaged NSA and FBI success in the COMINT operations that she has compromised to the Russians. pl
pl,
Before 9/11, the FBI considered going to the FISA court for a warrant similar to going to a dentist for a root canal. I witnessed the long saga of the FBI's efforts to get a warrant in support of the MOONLIGHT MAZE investigation. It was long and excruciating and the FBI was under constant pressure from the head of a joint IC/LE task force cobbled together to deal with the issue. This TF reported directly to the White House. That didn't make the FBI's attempts to get this warrant any easier. Now the FISA court looks to be very close to a rubber stamp operation to be abused by LE and the EB.
I wonder if this alleged wiretap was related to the connections between a Trump Tower server and Alfa Bank in Moscow.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 05 March 2017 at 10:47 AM
TTG
Present day FISA court judges are selected for their ambition for the appellate bench or other goodies. I know several having testified in their day job courts. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 05 March 2017 at 11:22 AM
Col. Lang,
I've recently read that the judges were appointed by Clinton and the decision to grant the warrant was made after Clinton met Loretta Lynch to discuss their grandchildren. Cough.
What really makes me furious is that the warrant to monitor 911 plotter Zachariah Moussaoui wasn't granted.
Oh, our girl Farkas was on a network AGAIN.
Posted by: Cee | 06 March 2017 at 02:14 AM
Babak Makkinejad,
Well . . . its better than what Clinton offered. And nowadays, that may have to be enough.
Posted by: different clue | 06 March 2017 at 06:41 PM
She hints that Trump did something hideous as regards Russian, but doesn't say what. Isn't that akin to asking your friend in public, "So when did you stop cheating on your wife?"
Posted by: howard feinski | 29 March 2017 at 02:14 PM
How is she not immediately ushered into the FBI - questioned and charged? I would be thrown in jail within hours if I had done this at NSA, during my tenure.
Posted by: bob | 30 March 2017 at 01:24 AM
Yes, she signed the document, but it's almost just window dressing. Anyone with a Security Clearance at any level already knows they can never divulge secrets or methodology. These forms at the end of employment, at least in the military, started up basically as a reminder, due, evidently, to lots of stupid folks like this particular woman destroying untold numbers of operations and literally compromising not only our intelligence methods, but our international relations. Is she trying to poison President Trump's ability to work with Russia? She IS on tbe Atlantic Council, with the overarching objective to get us into a shooting war over Ukraine. She is digging heself a very deep hole.
Posted by: Maquis | 30 March 2017 at 07:45 AM
How did they get to conclude that sensitive research?
Posted by: Evelyn Wangari | 07 June 2017 at 06:04 AM
Keep following the researcher
Posted by: patrick | 13 June 2017 at 04:01 AM
God bless the American
Posted by: patrick | 13 June 2017 at 04:02 AM
Big fish
Posted by: patrick | 13 June 2017 at 04:03 AM
Patrick Farkas is not all that big a fish. If you want to post comments on SST they must be more substantial. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 13 June 2017 at 07:54 AM
Evelyn Farkas was one of six women selected by Politico to discuss the prevalence of sexual harassment against (civilian) women working in national security:
"Sexism on America's Front Lines"
interview by Susan B. Glasser with Loren DeJonge Schulman, Julie Smith, Kathleen Hicks, Laura Rosenberger, Mieke Eoyang, and Evelyn Farkas
Politico, 2017-11-06
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/06/sexism-on-americas-front-lines-the-full-transcript-215790
Since several at SST served in the Special Forces,
they might find the following excerpt from the article of interest:
Posted by: Keith Harbaugh | 07 November 2017 at 07:10 PM