« Operation "Grand Dawn" Post 1 | Main | When Intelligence Isn't - By Patrick Armstrong »

27 May 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

turcopolier

LeaNder

You, too, have read too many spy novels and seen too many movies. some of you are wasting time here by making up the most outlandish theories imaginable. I consider this to be a place for serious thought, not the kind of nonsense that some of you indulge in. You are not the worst. pl

turcopolier

Yeah, Right

I remember you. you have an IP address in New South Wales and an Israeli suffix on your E-mail. Interesting. I know. I know there are all kinds of explanations for that kind of thing but it still interests me. 1. The WP story says that it is based on Kizlyak's report to Moscow. BTW, the notion that he would report home on an unsecured phone line concerning a meeting like this is laughable except to the more ludicrous conspiracy fans. 2. A US government entity that desired to bug Trump Tower would require a FISA or other court warrant to do a "black bag job" legally. I have seen no evidence that this happened. 3. A private group? Who would that be and of course it would be a crime. pl

Cold War Zoomie

"...this would appear to make what Snowden did look like a minor transgression."

Not even close.

"Crown Jewels of this magnitude must be a very closely guarded secret..."

Yes and no. Reports are shared, not raw intercepts (typically not, but who knows?). The "gist" of the collection point was likely in the report(s) mentioned in the article, but not the details that are more tightly controlled.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_cycle

J

Here's one of my favorites that comes from a historical perspective, it is sung by Полина Гагарина regarding the Battle for Sevastopol where Людмила Павличенко garnered 309 kills. At the White House Людмила was asked by Eleanor Roosevelt that she had eliminated 309 men, Людмила replied she eliminated 309 Fascists.

Полина Гагарина - Кукушка (OST Битва за Севастополь)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuPX8mjeb-E

Cold War Zoomie

This line from the article intrigues me the most "...according to U.S. officials *briefed* on intelligence reports."

Lots of people can read lots of reports. But who gets briefed? Hmmmm.

The Twisted Genius

Jack,

Sure sophisticated data operations have been around for a while. I remember the praises sung about the Obama operation and how the RNC could not compete with what the Democrats had at that time. It's only reasonable to expect the RNC machine would catch up and surpass what the complacent DNC had at that time. Advances in AI abilities to find meaning in larger and larger mountains of disparate data has made these operations much more effective. What the Trump team developed on their own with Cambridge Analytica and others combined with what the RNC had developed put the DNC effort to shame in 2016.

The Twisted Genius

Eric Newhill,

I also don't see the need for the RNC to go to Guccifer 2.0 for the data, but several RNC operatives freely admitted they did just that. I was surprised to find this was first reported in December 2016. I guess everyone missed it at that time.

dilbert dogbert

Read this and rethink that he was victorious based on mobilizing the ordinary:

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

There were good reasons back in 1787 but are those reasons still valid today?

Yeah, Right

"The WP story says that it is based on Kizlyak's report to Moscow."

True, that is how the WaPo reports the story.

But consider this: if... somebody... bugged Trump Tower then they will know two things with certainty:
1) What Was Said between Kushner and Kizlyak
2) Kizlyak will report to Moscow on What Was Said.

Those... buggers... don't need to decrypt (or even intercept) any communication between Kizlyak and Moscow, they need only assume that Kizlyak will faithfully do his job in order to deduce that such a communication would be sent.

So their bugging of that room in Trump Tower is a twofer:
1) they can leak the conversation to embarrass Trump
2) they can embarrass the Russians by insinuating that their encrypted communications system is compromised.

"A US government entity that desired to bug Trump Tower would require a FISA or other court warrant to do a "black bag job" legally"

Agreed, if they wanted to do this legally.

I believe that Richard Nixon never asked for a court warrant to break into the Watergate Tower.

But in that case absence of evidence turned out not to be evidence of absence - he simply did it anyway, and hang the legal niceties.


turcopolier

Yeah Right

So, your theory is that the Obama Administration ordered an illegal surreptitious physical bugging of Trump Tower in order to know what the Trumpies were talking about. Well, that is what Trump claims as well. pl

turcopolier

Dilbert D

FB Ali is Canadian. He has nothing to do with our constitution. I am bored with the endless bitching about the constitution. the truth is that there is no actual way available to change the constitution in any important way. pl

Fred

Eric,

Of course they wouldn't need a hacker for voter data. The point you miss is that the RNC was supporting whom prior to Trump? Cruz, Rubio, Kaisich and the rest; not least being the great Jeb! Bush - I think he blew through $130,000,000 before becoming loser # twelve. The RNC establishment dislikes Trump almost as much as the Democrats.

turcopolier

CWZ

As a former DIO for the ME and S Asia and SSO det. commander long ago I assure you that some SIGINT reports are disseminated in "raw" form to recipients who are not analysts. pl

Jack

Sir

How did the Russians change the outcome of our election?

I haven't read any plausible explanation. All I've seen is they apparently hacked the DNC and Podesta's emails and disclosed the truth via Wikileaks. Brennan claims "brazen interference" but does not provide any details. He however provides plenty of innuendo by saying "everyone knows". No. Many people don't know what exactly Brennan means by "the Russians brazenly interfered". Of course, he also says he has no evidence of "collusion" between the Russians and Trump's team.

Recall that Team Trump were being ridiculed in the media because they did not have a Get Out The Vote operation of any significance. That Hillary had Ground Game v2.0 compared to even Obama. Trump spent a quarter of what she spent. She had way more ads on than he did. He however had way more well attended rallies. Hillary just couldn't get enough to show up at her rallies indicating a lack of enthusiasm.

Occams Razor in this case is that enough typically Democrat voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania rejected Hillary and her status quo establishment message. And they were not sufficiently swayed with her theme of being the first woman President. They instead were willing to give Trump and his America First message a chance.

IMO, the establishment were truly shocked on election night. They went from Trump's bumbling campaign with all the "serious" pundits all claiming certainty of Hillary's electoral college win to hysteria. First it was the pathetic, she won the popular vote so the electoral college should change the vote of their states. Then rather than accept defeat graciously and accept responsibility for nominating a poor candidate it became the Russians stole the election 24×7. How can this end well? Haven't we set the precedent that the next President will also face a campaign of de-legitimization? Maybe not the MSM if it is a Borgista.

turcopolier

jack

"How did the Russians change the outcome of our election?" IMO they did not. pl

Larry Kart

Are you saying that a new constitutional convention itself is highly unlikely, or that if there is one that it won't/can't "change the constitution in any important way"?

If the former happens, and the article below (one of several I've read on the subject) suggests how it could, why could a new constitutional convention not then change the constitution in any number of important ways? Are you speaking of structural/legal barriers to such developments or political ones (or both) or something else that I’m not thinking of? I'm not trolling here, just asking for reassurance.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-republican-constitution-amendment-20161205-story.html

TV

Between Trump and his "dumbest guys in the room" courtiers and the "dedicated brave" professionals (actually traitors) in the IC divulging real and madeup secrets, is there at least ONE adult inside the beltway?
And the FBI: looking into Trump-Russia for 10 months,nothing to show for it and meanwhile the torrential disclosure of really sensitive secrets continues unabated.
Federal Bureau of Incompetence.

TV

And Hillary, and the accompanying Clinton crime family, was fit?

Account Deleted

CWZ,

OK not even close to making Snowden's revelations look minor - have you a better comparison of scale? Thanks.

turcopolier

TV

As I wrote, IMO it is more likely to be political appointees from the BHO world who are still in government who are doing the leaking. They have just as much access depending on their job. Think Evelyn Farkas and her like. pl

turcopolier

Larry Kart

IMO there might be a constitutional convention but the changes that the big population state centralizing nationalists want like 2 senators a state and the electoral college would never get enough state ratifications to be enacted. The present constitution was created precisely to protect the rights of the small population states. pl

Stephanie

No, Trump didn't give the Russians the guy's name, rank, and serial number, but he gave them enough information that it would be much easier for them to track down the source. Of course, once Trump blurts out something classified while bragging about the quality of his intel, it's no longer classified, so no (legal) problems there. However, the intel also wasn't ours to divulge, which is also not illegal because of where he's sitting, but is also not good procedure, as I understand it.

Trump's White House is indeed rife with intrigue, but in large part because Trump wants it that way and sees conflict and competition among his aides as beneficial - which it can be, up to a point, but Trump's people have gone well beyond that point. Leaks are an inevitable result of cultivating such an environment (and they are hard to stop even in a smoothly-running White House like his predecessor's -- and the harsh measures the Obama Administration took against leakers, measures without recent precedent). He's not on a TV show any more and perhaps now that fact is sinking in.

turcopolier

Stephanie

"the guy's name, rank, and serial number, but he gave them enough information that it would be much easier for them to track down the source." The source was a government, not an individual. pl

TV

Since you're a veteran of that world, I defer to you veteraness, but what is Pompeo doing at CIA?
And why isn't Sessions cleaning out the rats's nest at the DOJ and FBI?
I know that you don't know, but the lack of action by the responsible officials is worsening this whole mess.
Politicians (Sessions, Pompeo)- talkers not doers.
And Trump???
Instead of kicking these guys asses to fix it, he's tweeting and throwing tantrums.

turcopolier

TV

Don't bullshit me. You have never deferred to me on anything. Pompaio and Sessions are not IC professionals. They are more of the same politically appointed trash as the ones left behind from the Democrats. Trump evidently doesn't know his ass from a hot rock. The number of people with access to whatever kind of US classified information involved here must be quite small. it should be easy to catch the bastards. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad