The Intel Community Lie About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus

Americans tend to be a trusting lot. When they hear a high level government official, like former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, state that Russia’s Vladimir ordered and monitored a Russian cyber attack on the 2016 Presidential election, those trusting souls believe him. For experienced intelligence professionals, who know how the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence works, they detect a troubling omission in Clapper’s presentation and, upon examining the so-called “Intelligence Community Assessment,” discover that document is a deceptive fraud. It lacks actual evidence that Putin and the Russians did what they are accused of doing. More troubling—and this is inside baseball—is the fact that two critical members of the Intelligence Community—the DIA and State INR—were not asked to coordinate/clear on the assessment. 

 

You should not feel stupid if you do not understand or appreciate the last point. That is something only people who actually have produced a Community Assessment would understand. I need to take you behind the scenes and ensure you understand what is intelligence and how analysts assess and process that intelligence. Once you understand that then you will be able to see the flaws and inadequacies in the report released by Jim Clapper in January 2017.

 

The first thing you need to understand is the meaning of the term, the “Intelligence Community” aka IC. Comedians are not far off the mark in touting this phrase as the original oxymoron. On paper the IC currently is comprised of 17 agencies/departments:

 

1. Air Force Intelligence, 
2. Army Intelligence, 
3. Central Intelligence Agency aka CIA, 
4. Coast Guard Intelligence, 
5. Defense Intelligence Agency aka DIA, 
6. Energy Department aka DOE, 
7. Homeland Security Department, 
8. State Department aka INR, 
9. Treasury Department, 
10. Drug Enforcement Administration aka DEA, 
11. Federal Bureau of Investigation aka FBI, 
12. Marine Corps Intelligence, 
13. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency aka NGIA or NGA, 
14. National Reconnaissance Office aka NRO, 
15. National Security Agency aka NSA, 
16. Navy Intelligence 
17. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

 

But not all of these are “national security” agencies—i.e., those that collect raw intelligence, which subsequently is packaged and distributed to other agencies on a need to know basis. Only six of these agencies take an active role in collecting raw foreign intelligence. The remainder are consumers of that intelligence product. In other words, the information does not originate with them. They are like a subscriber to the New York Times. They get the paper everyday and, based upon what they read, decide what is going on in their particular world. The gatherers of intelligence are:

 

• The CIA collects and disseminates intelligence from human sources, i.e., foreigners who have been recruited to spy for us.
• The DIA collects and disseminates intelligence on the activities and composition of foreign militaries and rely primarily on human sources but also collect documentary material.
• The State Department messages between the Secretary of State and the our embassies constitutes the intelligence reviewed and analyzed by other agencies. 
• NGIA collects collects, analyzes, and distributes geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) in support of national security. NGA was known as the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) until 2003. In other words, maps and photographs.
• NRO designs, builds, and operates the reconnaissance satellites of the U.S. federal government, and provides satellite intelligence to several government agencies, particularly signals intelligence (SIGINT) to the NSA, imagery intelligence (IMINT) to the NGA, and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) to the DIA.
• NSA analyzes signal intelligence, including phone conversations and emails.

 

Nine of the other agencies/departments are consumers. They do not collect and package original info. They are the passive recipients. The analysts in those agencies will base their conclusions on information generated by other agencies, principally the CIA and the NSA. 

 

The astute among you, I am sure, will insist my list is deficient and will ask, “What about the FBI and DEA?” It is true that those two organizations produce a type of human intelligence—i.e., they recruit informants and those informants provide those agencies with information that the average person understandably would categorize as “intelligence.” But there is an important difference between human intelligence collected by the CIA and the human source intelligence gathered by the FBI or the DEA. The latter two are law enforcement agencies. No one from the CIA or the NSA has the power to arrest someone. The FBI and the DEA do. 

 

Their authority as law enforcement agents, however, comes with limitations, especially in collecting so-called intelligence. The FBI and the DEA face egal constraints on what information they can collect and store. The FBI cannot decide on its own that skinheads represent a threat and then start gathering information identifying skinhead leaders. There has to be an allegation of criminal activity. When such “human” information is being gathered under the umbrella of law enforcement authorities, it is being handled as potential evidence that may be used to prosecute someone. This means that such information cannot be shared with anyone else, especially intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA.

 

The “17th” member of the IC is the Director of National Intelligence aka DNI. This agency was created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks for the ostensible purpose of coordinating the activities and products of the IC. In theory it is the organization that is supposed to coordinate what the IC collects and the products the IC produces. Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle.

 

An important, but little understood point, is that these agencies each have a different focus. They are not looking at the same things. In fact, most are highly specialized and narrowly focused. Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Their intelligence operations primarily hone in on maritime threats and activities in U.S. territorial waters, such as narcotic interdictions. They are not responsible for monitoring what the Russians are doing in the Black Sea and they have no significant expertise in the cyber activities of the Russian Army military intelligence organization aka the GRU.

 

In looking back at the events of 2016 surrounding the U.S. Presidential campaign, most people will recall that Hillary Clinton, along with several high level Obama national security officials,  pushed the lie that the U.S. Intelligence agreed that Russia had unleashed a cyber war on the United States. The initial lie came from DNI Jim Clapper and Homeland Security Chief, Jeb Johnson, who released the following memo to the press on 7 October 2016:

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

 

This was a deliberate deceptive message. It implied that the all 16 intelligence agencies agreed with the premise and “evidence of Russian meddling. Yet not a single bit of proof was offered. More telling was the absence of any written document issued from the Office of the DNI that detailed the supposed intel backing up this judgment. Notice the weasel language in this release:

 

“The USIC is confident . . .”

“We believe . . .”

 

If there was actual evidence/intelligence, such as an intercepted conversation between Vladimir Putin and a subordinate ordering them to hack the DNC or even a human source report claiming such an activity, then it would have and should have been referenced in the Clapper/Johnson document. It was not because such intel did not exist.

 

Hillary Clinton helped perpetuate this myth during the late October debate with Donald Trump, when she declared as fact that:

 

"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election," Clinton said. "I find that deeply disturbing.”

 

What is shocking is that there was so little pushback to this nonsense. Hardly anyone asked why would the DEA, Coast Guard, the Marines or DOE have any technical expertise to make a judgment about Russian hacking of U.S. election systems.  And no one of any importance asked the obvious—where was the written memo or National Intelligence Estimate laying out what the IC supposedly knew and believed? There was nothing.

 

It is natural for the average American citizen to believe that something given the imprimatur of the Intelligence Community must reflect solid intelligence and real expertise. Expertise is supposed to be the cornerstone of intelligence analysis and the coordination that occurs within the IC. That means that only those analysts (and the agencies they represent) will be asked to contribute or comment on a particular intelligence issue. When it comes to the question of whether Russia had launched a full out cyber attack on the Democrats and the U.S. electoral system, only analysts from agencies with access to the intelligence and the expertise to analyze that intelligence would be asked to write or contribute to an intelligence memorandum. 

 

Who would that be? The answer is simple—the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, State INR and the FBI. (One could make the case that there are some analysts within Homeland Security that might have expertise, but they would not necessarily have access to the classified information produced by the CIA or the NSA.) The task of figuring out what the Russians were doing and planned to do fell to five agencies and only three of the five (the CIA, the DIA and NSA) would have had the ability to collect intelligence that could inform the work of analysts.

 

Before I can explain to you how an analyst work this issue it is essential for you to understand  the type of  intelligence that would be required to “prove” Russian meddling. There are four possible sources—1) a human source who had direct access to the Russians who directed the operation or carried it out; 2) a signal intercept of a conversation or cyber activity that was traced to Russian operatives; 3) a document that discloses the plan or activity observed; or 4) forensic evidence from the computer network that allegedly was attacked.

 

Getting human source intel is primarily the job of CIA. It also is possible that the DIA or the FBI had human sources that could have contributed relevant intelligence. 

 

Signal intercepts are collected and analyzed by the NSA. 

 

Documentary evidence, which normally is obtained from a human source but can also be picked up by NSA intercepts or even an old-fashioned theft.

 

Finally there is the forensic evidence. In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to  the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked.

 

What Do Analysts Do?

 

Whenever there is a “judgment” or “consensus” claimed on behalf to the IC, it means that one or more analysts have written a document that details the evidence and presents conclusions based on that evidence. On a daily basis the average analyst confronts a flood of classified information (normally referred to as “cables” or “messages”). When I was on the job in the 1980s I had to wade through more than 1200 messages—i.e., human source reports from the CIA, State Department messages with embassies around the world, NSA intercepts, DIA reports from their officers based overseas (most in US embassies) and open source press reports. Today, thanks to the internet, the average analyst must scan through upwards of 3000 messages. It is humanly impossible.

 

The basic job of an analyst is to collect as much relevant information as possible on the subject or topic that is their responsibility. There are analysts at the CIA, the NSA, the DIA and State INR that have the job of knowing about Russian cyber activity and capabilities. That is certain. But we are not talking about hundreds of people. 

 

Let us move from the hypothetical to the actual. In January of 2017, DNI Jim Clapper release a report entitled, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” (please see here). In subsequent testimony before the Congress, Clapper claimed that he handpicked two dozen analysts to draft the document. That is not likely. There may have been as many as two dozen analysts who read the final document and commented on it, but there would never be that many involved in in drafting such a document. In any event, only analysts from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI were involved :

 

This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. 

 

Limiting the drafting and clearance on this document to only the CIA, the NSA and the FBI is highly unusual because one of the key analytical conclusions in the document identifies the Russian military intelligence organization, the GRU, as one of the perpetrators of the cyber attack. DIA’s analysts are experts on the GRU and there also are analysts in State Department’s Bureau of INR who should have been consulted. Instead, they were excluded.

 

Here is how the process should have worked in producing this document: 

 

1. One or more analysts are asked to do a preliminary draft. It is customary in such a document for the analyst to cite specific intelligence, using phrases such as: “According to a reliable source of proven access,” when citing a CIA document or “According to an intercept of a conversation between knowledgeable sources with access,” when referencing something collected by the NSA. The analyst does more than repeat what is claimed in the intel reports, he or she also has the job of explaining what these facts mean or do not mean. 

 

2. There always is an analyst leading the effort who has the job of integrating the contributions of the other analysts into a coherent document. Once the document is completed in draft it is handed over to Branch Chief and then Division Chief for editing. We do not know who had the lead, but it was either the FBI, the CIA or the NSA.

 

3. At the same time the document is being edited at originating agency, it is supposed to be sent to the other clearing agencies, i.e. those agencies that either provided the intelligence cited in the draft (i.e., CIA, NSA, DIA, or State) or that have expertise on the subject. As noted previously, it is highly unusual to exclude the DIA and INR.

 

4. Once all the relevant agencies clear on the content of the document, it is sent into the bowels of the DNI where it is put into final form. 

 

That is how the process is supposed to work. But the document produced in January 2017 was not a genuine work reflecting the views of the “Intelligence Community.” It only represented the supposed thinking (and I use that term generously) of CIA, NSA and FBI analysts. In other words, only three of 16 agencies cleared on the document that presented four conclusions:

 

• Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

 

• We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. 

 

• We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. 

 

• We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

 

Sounds pretty ominous, but the language used tells a different story. The conclusions are based on assumptions and judgments. There was nor is any actual evidence from intelligence sources showing that Vladimir Putin ordered up anything or that his government preferred Trump over Clinton.

 

How do I know this? If such evidence existed—either documentary or human source or signal intercept—it would have been cited in this document. Not only that. Such evidence would have corroborated the claims presented in the Steele dossier. But such evidence was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the “Dossier” had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the “Dossier” as “salacious and unverified.”

 

It is genuinely shocking that DNI Jim Clapper, with the acquiescence of the CIA, the FBI and NSA, would produce a document devoid of any solid intelligence. There is a way to publicly release sensitive intelligence without comprising a the original source. But such sourcing is absent in this document.

 

That simple fact should tell you all you need to know. The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.

Comments

[turcopolier]

All

"Most objective observers would concede that the DNI has been a miserable failure and nothing more than a bureaucratic boondoggle." Actually the main achievement of the creation of the DNI function was the separation of the functions of head of the IC and head of the CIA. When those were combined in one person the CIA used that to screw the rest of the community, especially DIA (aka the real enemy in CIA eyes)by manipulating chairmanship of the community for CIA's advantage. pl

[LeaNder]

Good summary argument, PT. Thanks. Helpful reminder.

But, makes me feel uncomfortable. Cynical scenario. I'd prefer them to be both drivers and driven, somehow stumbling into the chronology of events. They didn't hack the DNC, after all. Crowdstrike? Steele? ...

********
But yes, all the 17 agencies Clinton alluded to in her 3rd encounter with Trump was a startling experience:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

[turcopolier]

LeaNder

One other point on which Tacitus and I differ is the quality of the analysts in the "minors." the "bigs" often recruit analysts from the "minors" so they can't be all that bad. And the analysts in all these agencies receive much the same data feed electronically every day. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true. I, too, read hundreds of documents every day to keep up with the knowledge base of the analysts whom I interrogated continuously. "How do you know that?" would have been typical. pl

[Flavius]

Well done.
"The Intelligence Community was used as a tool to misinform the public and persuade them that Russia was guilty of something they did not do. That lie remains unchallenged.'"
Yes it was and so remains the lie unchallenged.
Conjectural garbage appears first to have been washed through the FBI, headquarters no less, then probably it picked up a Triple A rating at the CIA, and then when the garbage got to Clapper, it was bombs away - we experts all agree. There were leaks, but they weren't sufficient to satisfy Steele so he just delivered the garbage whole to the Media in order to make it a sure thing. The garbage was placed securely out there in the public domain with a Triple A rating because the FBI wouldn't concern itself with garbage, would it?
Contrast this trajectory with what the Russian policy establishment did when it concluded that the US had done something in the Ukraine that Russia found significantly actionable: it released the taped evidence of Nuland and our Ambassador finishing off the coup.
The whole sequence reminds me in some ways of the sub prime mortgage bond fiasco: garbage risk progressively bundled, repackaged, rebranded and resold by big name institutions that should have known better.
I have only two questions: was it misfeasance, malfeasance, or some ugly combination of the two? And are they going to get away with it?

[Richardstevenhack]

Re this: " In the case of Russian meddling there is no forensic evidence available to the IC because the Democratic National Committee did not permit the FBI to investigate and examine the computers and the network that was allegedly attacked."

To be precise, CrowdStrike did provide the FBI with allegedly "certified true images" of the DNC servers allegedly involved in the alleged "hack." They also allegedly provided these images to FireEye and Mandiant, IIRC.

All three allegedly examined those images and concurred with CrowdStrike's analysis.

Of course, given the CrowdStrike itself is a massively compromised organization due to its founder and CEO, those "certified true images" are themselves tainted evidence.

In addition, regardless of whether the images were true or not, the evidence allegedly contained therein is painfully inadequate to confirm that APT28 or APT29 were involved, nor that the Russian government was involved, or even that there was a real hack involved, and even less evidence that any emails that might have been exfiltrated were given to Wikileaks as opposed to another leak such as that alleged by Sy Hersh to have been done by Seth Rich.

The "assessment" that Putin ordered any of this is pure mind-reading and can be utterly dismissed absent any of the other evidence Publius points out as necessary.

The same applies to any "estimate" that the Russian government preferred Trump or wished to denigrate Clinton. Based on what I read in pro-Russian news outlets, Russian officials took great pains to not pick sides and Putin's comments were similarly very restrained. The main quote from Putin about Trump that emerged was mistranslated as approval whereas it was more an observation of Trump's personality. At no time did Putin ever say he favored Trump over Clinton, even though that was a likely probability given Clinton's "Hitler" comparison.

As an aside, I also recommend Scott Ritter's trashing of the ICA. Ritter is familiar with intelligence estimates and their reliability based on his previous service as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq and in Russia implementing arms control treaties.

Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4

Throwing a Curveball at ‘Intelligence Community Consensus’ on Russia
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

His analysis of the NSA document leaked by NSA contractor Reality Winner which supposedly supported the Russia theory is also relevant.

Leaked NSA Report Is Short on Facts, Proves Little in ‘Russiagate’ Case
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/leaked-nsa-report-is-short-on-facts-proves-little-in-russiagate-case/

[scott s.]

As I read this, I take it to be a description of "national" or strategic-level intel. Certainly there is lots of dedicated intel collection and analysis going on at the tactical level by the other agencies listed. There could be interface between tactical collection and national sources, which I assume is why the "other" agencies get asked for comment.

[turcopolier]

scottS

These are ALL national intelligence organizations. Tactical intelligence exists WITHIN the operational forces. Tactical intelligence is funded from the operating budgets of the armed forces. (TIARA funds)The IC is funded under several "programs" of PPBS. Tactical intelligence is a recipient of the work product of these agencies. The 17 are statutory member of the national IC. pl

[The Twisted Genius]

pl and all,

I can vouch for the improvement made by the creation of the DNI, especially for DIA. Prior to its creation, the coordination process for intelligence operations was merely a euphemism for begging for permission. The DNI changed all that. The process became a true coordination process, much to the chagrin of the CIA. In addition to the DNI, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) became more involved in the process adding more weight to the DIA position. Additionally, protocols were established for DOD/DIA to conduct purely military operations with a deconfliction process rather than a coordination process. That may sound like a small thing, but it was a profound development.

[JW]

A good summary, but a moot point would be whether Hillary Clinton, despite being a lawyer, would ever have understood it sufficiently to actually make sensible use of it.
Naturally someone will now question if Trump would understand it, and I suggest he would.

[JW]

Steele ? Does 'Steele' actually exist ?

[Green Zone Café]

The "17 intelligence agencies" statement was undoubtedly hype, but it's old news now.

The reasonable position now is to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. All else is partisan spinning, by all sides.

[ann]

This is a wonderful explanation of the intelligence community. And I thank you for the explanation. My interpretation is: In 1990 +- Bush 41 sold us the 1st Iraq war using fudged intelligence, then Bush 43 sold us the second Iraq war using fabricated intelligence. And now the Obama Administration tried to sell us fake intelligence in regard to Russia in order to get Clinton elected. However inadequate my summary is it looks like the Democrats are less skilled in propaganda than the Repubs. And what else is the difference?

[Fred]

GZC,

Pointing out that the legal basis for the entire Mueller dog and pony show was based on a fraud, well lets not do that; We should by all means just sit back and let the narrative unfold as those who are trying to unseat the elected president continue unopposed to craft public opinion, just in time for mid-term elections.

[johnf]

Previous posts on the poisoning of Colonel Skripal, the ex-FSB double agent, have been on the Alistair Crooke thread, but it seems worth continuing in this thread.

The latest claim (behind a paywall) is in the Daily Telegraph that Colonel Skripal was close to an unnamed member of the consultancy which Christopher Steele is a member of.

Personally I think this whole story (which has dominated the British press and media for the last three days) is a false flag, borrowing much of its narrative line from the Litvinenko poisoning (in which Steele was also heavily involved). As the plot line gradually unwinds, it seems to be tying in more and more with Russiagate across the ocean.

Colonel Skripal was recruited in Estonia by MI6.

(David Habbakuk's opinion on this farrago would be greatly appreciated)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/07/poisoned-russian-spy-sergei-skripal-close-consultant-linked/

[Richardstevenhack]

Mueller has had 18 months and has proceeded to reveal exactly nothing related to either Trump "collusion" with Russia nor Russia as a state actually doing anything remotely described as "meddling."

His expected indictment of some Russians for the DNC hack is going to be more of the same in all likelihood. I predict there will be next to zero evidence produced either that the Russians named are in fact members of APT28 or APT29 or that they had any direct connection with either the alleged DNC hack or Wikileaks or the Russian government.

It's a witch hunt, nothing more. People holding their breath for the "slam dunk" are going to pass out soon if they haven't already.

[blue peacock]

GZC #12

Mueller is investigating some aspects.

But there is another aspect - the conspiracy inside law enforcement and the IC. That is also being investigated. There are Congressional committees in particular Nunes, Goodlatte and Grassley. Then there is the DOJ IG. And today AG Sessions confirms there is a DOJ prosecutor outside Washington investigating.

IMO, the conspiracy is significantly larger in scale and scope than anything the Russians did.

Yes, indeed we'll have to wait and see what facts Mueller reveals. But also what facts these other investigations reveal.

[English Outsider]

Thank you for setting out the geography and workings of this complex world.

Might I ask how liaison with other Intelligence Communities fits in? Is intelligence information from non-US sources such as UK intelligence sources subject to the same process of verification and evaluation?

I ask because of the passage in your article -

"But such evidence (corroborating the Steele dossier) was not forthcoming. If it had existed than Jim Comey could have claimed in his June 2017 testimony before Congress that the parts of the “Dossier” had been verified. He did not do so. Testifying under oath Comey described the “Dossier” as “salacious and unverified.” "

Does this leave room for the assertion that although the "Dossier" was unverified in the US it was accepted as good information because it had been verified by UK Intelligence or by persons warranted by the UK?

In other words, was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?

[Green Zone Café]

As I've said before, "probable cause" is a low and flexible standard. Mueller's investigation has more than enough evidence in the public record to justify its existence.

I'm pretty cynical and don't follow this obsessively, but there's a lot of "smoke."

Papadapoulos's drunken statements to the Australian ambassador and his other activities meeting with a Russian agent, the hacking of Podesta, Roger Stone's statements and activities, the St. Petersburg troll farm and false flag activities in the USA, the "baby adoption" meeting with Don, Jr. and Russians, Eric Prince's activities and trip to the Seychelles, Manafort's connections with the Russian government and his money laundering, Trump's previous business dealings with the Russians including possible loans, Flynn's activities.

Even if some of these things have innocent explanations, taken together this is a large amount of circumstantial evidence justifying a full investigation.

Finally, the continual effort to attack Mueller and the investigation, imply there's no probable cause, or that evidence was illegally obtained, in order to justify firing Mueller is another tell that something serious might have happened and some people are sweating their future freedom and wealth.

[turcopolier]

EO
" ... was UK Intelligence, or an ex-UK intelligence officer, used to get material through the US evaluation process, material that would not have got through that US evaluation process had it originated within the US itself?" I would say yes and especially yes if the contact for this piece of data was conducted at the highest level withing the context of the already tight liaison between the US IC and Mi-6/GCHQ. PT may think differently. pl

[turcopolier]

GZC

A lot of smoke? Only if you wish to place a negative value on everything the Trump people did or were. pl

[jsn]

The CIA appears to be trying to right the wrongs done them with the creation of the DNI:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/08/dems-m08.html

[Green Zone Café]

Colonel, there's need for anyone to make sweeping statements about "everything the Trump people did." Maybe the tariffs are good. By all means, build the Wall.

But enough of these guys - Manafort, Page, Papadapoulos, Eric Prince, Stone, Flynn - are clowns or worse, and have connections to Russia or Assange.

There's probable cause to investigate. The important thing is that the investigation not be terminated a la Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre or other brute force authority.

Mueller will produce the facts, or not.

[turcopolier]

jsn

The wrongs done them? I hope that was irony. pl

[turcopolier]

GZC

Was it Hitler or Stalin who said "show me the man and I will find his crime?" As I have said before, Trumps greatest vulnerability lies in his previous business life as an entrepreneurial hustler. If he is anything like the many like him whom I observed in my ten business years, then he has cut corners legally somewhere in international business. they pretty much all do that. Kooshy, a successful businessman confirmed that here a while back. These other guys were all business hustlers including Flynn and their activities have made them vulnerable to Mueller. IMO you have to ask yourself how much you want to be governed by political hacks and how much by hustlers. pl

[turcopolier]

jsn

hy this socialist pub would fing it surprising that former public servants seek elected office is a mystery to me. BTW, in re all the discussion here of the IC, there are many levels in these essentially hierarchical structures and one's knowledge of them is conditioned by the perspective from which you viewed them. pl