Author Topic: Intel Matters  (Read 249880 times)


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
Brennan was Homeland Security Advisor at that time
« Reply #651 on: August 17, 2018, 03:53:26 PM »
CIA Director at that time was :

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


From the above Wiki article:

"In December 2016, Morell suggested the interference of Russia in the 2016 United States presidential election was "the political equivalent of 9/11."[30] He added that President Obama should retaliate imminently, in spite of president-elect Donald Trump's doubts about the allegations of Russian influence.[31] In March 2017, Morell said: "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."[32]"

The initial part of the above will get him on CNN.  The latter part will not .   



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile


rickn

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #655 on: October 05, 2018, 05:52:41 AM »
On government intel, it would only matter if the chips were capturing government info flowing on those networks.

But as related to those government employees who used private networks to store and send classified information; e.g., Hilary Clinton, if she was using AAPL devices for her personal stuff, then there is a much greater risk that the Chinese would have intercepted everything she sent or stored there once they figured that she was using that network.  And that applies to all government employees - not just her.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #656 on: October 05, 2018, 01:30:58 PM »
 :-o :-o :-o :x :x :x :cry: :cry: :cry:



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
US bites back against Chinese Industrial Espionage
« Reply #659 on: October 11, 2018, 10:15:51 AM »
Oct 11, 2018 | 03:22 GMT
4 mins read
The United States Bites Back Against Chinese Industrial Espionage
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi (L) greets U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R) prior to a meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse on Monday, Oct. 8, in Beijing, China.
(DAISUKE SUZUKI/Pool/Getty Images)

    In an unusual turn of events, the latest China-U.S. industrial espionage case resulted in the detention of a Chinese intelligence officer.

    The arrest is a warning to the Chinese Ministry of State Security that the United States takes industrial espionage threats seriously.

    Such action is, however, unlikely to stop Beijing's aggressive behavior.

Editor's Note: This security-focused assessment is one of many such analyses found at Stratfor Threat Lens, a unique protective intelligence product designed with corporate security leaders in mind. Threat Lens enables industry professionals and organizations to anticipate, identify, measure and mitigate emerging threats to people, assets, and intellectual property the world over. Threat Lens is the only unified solution that analyzes and forecasts security risk from a holistic perspective, bringing all the most relevant global insights into a single, interactive threat dashboard.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Oct. 10 that charges would be levied against a Chinese intelligence officer for conspiring and attempting to conduct economic espionage for state gain and theft of trade secrets. The officer, Yanjun Xu, is reportedly employed by China's Ministry of State Security. Belgian authorities arrested him April 1 in Brussels based on a U.S. criminal complaint filed March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Xu was indicted April 4, and his indictment was unsealed Oct. 10 in connection with his extradition from Belgium to the United States.

A Familiar Cycle

The case follows a familiar cycle in which employees of a foreign company with technology the Chinese government wants access to are asked to travel to China to speak at a university, trade group or conference. Such employees are then commonly met by intelligence officers under cover of a university or association, who then assess the person and attempt to recruit them if deemed valuable. If successful, an ongoing relationship is then established.

In this case, a co-conspirator approached the target, identified as "Employee 1" in the indictment, in March 2017 under the guise of an academic exchange. As the conversation progressed, Employee 1 was eventually invited to speak at Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronomics (NUAA). After delivering his presentation in China in June 2017, Employee 1 was introduced to Xu, who was operating under the cover name Qu Hui and claimed to be from the Jiangsu Science and Technology Promotion Association, which is affiliated with NUAA. Xu flattered Employee 1, paid him $3,500 in cash for his presentation and set up arrangements to continue communicating. This visit to China was used for the spotting and developing stages of the human intelligence cycle.

As Xu continued to communicate with Employee 1, he pressed for technical data while holding out the carrot of another speaking engagement in China that would bring another cash payment. During these communications, it is clear that Employee 1 reported the interaction with Xu to his company (identified as "Company A" in the indictment"), which notified the U.S. government. Employee 1 agreed to provide more information to Xu and sent him a copy of the registry of his company-owned laptop, which the criminal complaint notes the company had sanitized and approved for release. This file contained warnings that it was the proprietary information of Company A.

The file directory appears to have whetted Xu's appetite for more information, so Xu discussed with Employee 1 the possibility of copying the contents of his hard drive. Xu also changed his plan, and instead of bringing Employee 1 to China where he ostensibly could not bring his company-issued computer, Xu agreed to meet Employee 1 in Brussels during a previously scheduled business trip. This would mean Employee 1 would have his laptop for Xu to clone the hard drive. In reality, Xu walked into a sting operation.

A Harder U.S. Stance on China

While this case is news to the world today, the Chinese, Americans, Belgians and presumably other NATO allies have known about it since April 1, so any shock at the official level should be over. It comes amid a recent harder U.S. stance on China in the media. In an Oct. 4 statement, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence called China the foremost threat to the United States. Other recent government statements have referred to the industrial espionage threat China poses, while FBI Director Christopher Wray called China "the broadest, most complicated, most long-term" threat to U.S. interests in Oct. 10 testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Xu might well be convicted, but in the end, we suspect he will be traded as part of a spy swap for a U.S. intelligence officer, Chinese agent or perhaps dissident. Either way, the case has fired a shot across the bow of the Chinese Ministry of State Security, warning it that the United States takes the industrial espionage threat very seriously — and will pursue intelligence operations in third countries previously seen as safe theaters for collection. Even so, it is unlikely to dampen the aggressive nature of the Chinese Ministry of State Security and other intelligence agencies as they attempt to fulfill their political mandate to steal whatever China needs to catch up with the West.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile



bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #664 on: January 30, 2019, 11:45:40 AM »
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20190129-u-s-intel-chiefs-warn-washington-risks-losing-friends-influence

“It is increasingly a challenge to prioritize which threats are of greatest importance,” Coats said, sharing testimony that often and repeatedly contradicted past assertions by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #665 on: January 30, 2019, 01:54:12 PM »
Working from memory, the CIA et al have a very uneven record on assessing threats, including under Bush 43 saying Iran was not working on nukes-- which had the effect of enabling the Euros to justify doing business with Iran as Bush 43 was trying to get our beloved allies to act as such in the effort to squeeze Iran.

There's more in this vein and there is the entire matter of the Obama intel apparatus (Brennan, Clapper, et al) playing Deep State.  Who leaked Trump's conversations in his first month in office with PM of Australia?  with the President of Mexico? and much more , , ,

« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 06:03:26 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #666 on: January 30, 2019, 02:29:36 PM »
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20190129-u-s-intel-chiefs-warn-washington-risks-losing-friends-influence

“It is increasingly a challenge to prioritize which threats are of greatest importance,” Coats said, sharing testimony that often and repeatedly contradicted past assertions by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Our IC is mostly a complex mix of huge budgets combined with corruption and incompetence. Oh, and lots of rent-seeking beltway bandits!

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #667 on: January 31, 2019, 03:55:23 AM »
Working from memory, the CIA et al have a very uneven record on assessing threats, including under Bush 43 saying Iran was not working on nukes-- which had the effect of enabling the Euros to justify doing business with Iran as Bush 43 was trying to get our beloved allies to act as such in the effort to squeeze Iran.

There's more in this vein and there is the entire matter of the Obama intel apparatus (Brennan, Clapper, et al) playing Deep State.  Who leaked Trump's conversations in his first month in office with PM of Australia?  with the President of Mexico? and much more , , ,



I may be misreading your point here, but sometimes I am surprised your positions. You clearly support our troops, police and etc. However, you seem to lack a similar sentiment to our intelligence professionals and their service. On this point, please remember that the DNI is the statutory head of all members of the intelligence community, which includes military intelligence, and many agencies which support the military mission of the United States, including DIA, for example. Many of the members have missions which support missions you approve of, and have much success in achieving those goals, including for example, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #668 on: January 31, 2019, 11:30:08 AM »
"I may be misreading your point here, but sometimes I am surprised your positions."

The world can be a surprising place, so if our positions do not surprise sometimes as well, that should be a surprise haha  :-D

"You clearly support our troops, police and etc."

Yup!

"However, you seem to lack a similar sentiment to our intelligence professionals and their service."

Correct.

For those in the field, the respect is there.  For those at the top in Washington, not so much.

I forget the exact words, but when President Trump started taking on the IC folks, Schumer said words to the effect of "That's a big mistake.  Those IC folks will fuk you up."  Schumer has been around a long time in the inner sanctums of Imperial Washington for decades now , , ,

Putting aside the inevitable errors that go with intel work (e.g. missing the collapse of the Soviet Empire) there is the matter of political machinations.

For example, working from memory here:  

a) Bush 43 was pushing hard to get the Euros in line to squeeze Iran for its nuke program and then the CIA said that Iran was not working on its nukes anymore.  This gave the Euros all the room they needed to keep doing business with Iran, thus sabotaging his efforts to bring economic pressure to bear.

And where was the IC when Obama-Kerry were concocting the disastrous Obama executive order that put $150B into Iran's hands and gave them green light to go nuke in twelve years?!?

b) As tracked here on this forum, in the final days of the Obama administration, there was that matter of expanding from 3 to 17 the number of agencies receiving raw data of a certain type, thus making it hard to track down leaks detrimental to President Trump.  I found it, and find it, to be profoundly spectacular that the transcripts of our President's phone calls with foreign heads of state (Australia -- or was it New Zealand?- and Mexico) could be leaked, yet somehow no effort was ever made to find those responsible.

c) There was the role of the CIA in formulating the Susan Rice Benghazi talking points.  I'm drawing a blank on the name of the particular point man for CIA on this (Mike Morell?), nor do I have the time to track down the citations to support what I say, but clearly he was making a play to get appointed to head of CIA under President Hillary.

d) Even more, there are the actions of Brennan and Clapper in the attempted Collusion Soft Coup ((no hyperbole here, I mean this quite seriously and quite literally) in conspiracy with the top folks at the FBI, who not only threw the investigation of Hillary (no hyperbole here, I mean this quite seriously and quite literally) with one of the FBI conspirators being the head of the FBI's counter espionage division (IIRC this was Strock) and KNOWINGLY (see Ohr's testimony on this) signing off on using Russian provided twaddle via a British spy to use the intel apparatus of the United States to bootstrap its way into spying on the Trump campaign.

"On this point, please remember that the DNI is the statutory head of all members of the intelligence community, which includes military intelligence, and many agencies which support the military mission of the United States, including DIA, for example."

Yeah, headed by the political hack and moron Clapper who called the Muslim Brotherhood "secular".  IIRC there was plenty of flimflammery about 17 agencies supporting conclusions to Trump's detriment but upon examination this turned out to not be quite the case , , ,  BTW, the DIA was headed my General Flynn-- what inference is to be drawn from that?  Was he the target of dirty tricks?  Or was he himself a dirty trickster, taking money from the Turks while advising President Elect Trump?  Either way, it does not lead one to salute the DIA flag unquestioningly.

"Many of the members have missions which support missions you approve of, and have much success in achieving those goals, including for example, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. "

Absolutely!

Nor does this mean that I will give unquestioningly assume that some of the Washington players of the IC are not intensely partisan and personally ambitious people subjected to extraordinary temptation to use the knowledge and Orwellian powers at their disposal in service of those ends.  Throw into the mix the deep inherent challenges of the intel world, a shadowy world a lies and duplicity which requires a good and patriotic intel officer to play complicated games and well, I will think for myself as best as I can about what the top players emit.

PS:  Edited to add:  I gather one of the points of discord between the President and the recent report is its assertion that Iran is not working on going nuke.  A few thoughts on this:
a) Iran IS working on missiles that have no purpose other than nukes.  Why is that?
b) Iran has a history of working with the Norks (witness cf. the Nork reactor in Syria that the Israelis took out) It seems more than a little plausible to me that the Iranians have been off-shoring their nuke program to North Korea, indeed perhaps they are financing it with some of the $150B that Obama-Kerry gave them.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 12:18:32 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
in the world of spying hard to know who to believe
« Reply #669 on: February 13, 2019, 11:02:44 AM »
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-air-force-intel-vet-monica-witt-is-accused-of-being-irans-dumbest-spy

Just a thought.  What if she was a double agent working really for us.
She works her way into Iran spy activity then runs off to Iran pretending to be with them and the US purposely feeds her false information to send to Iran  and then later is trying to protect the cover (and her life)  puts out a "wanted for spying" bulletin.

All the time she is working for us.

Just like the music industry .  Cannot take anyone(s) at their word. 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
WSJ: Intel agencies not so intelligent
« Reply #670 on: February 19, 2019, 04:58:58 PM »
Hoping Big Dog is still with us , , ,

An Indictment Exposes America’s Witless Intelligence Agencies
Monica Witt allegedly spied for Iran—but she defected in 2013, so she’ll never be brought to justice.
2 Comments
By Bill Gertz
Feb. 19, 2019 6:43 p.m. ET
The wanted poster for former U.S. Air Force counterintelligence official Monica Witt, who allegedly spied for Iran.
The wanted poster for former U.S. Air Force counterintelligence official Monica Witt, who allegedly spied for Iran. Photo: /Associated Press

U.S. officials revealed last week that a federal grand jury indicted Monica Witt, a former Air Force counterintelligence official, on charges of passing extremely sensitive secrets to agents of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The case highlights how broken the U.S. intelligence system has become. For more than 30 years it has demonstrated an inability to keep secrets, to protect itself from foreign penetrations by hostile spy services, or to prevent current and former officials from defecting.

The result: Brave foreign nationals who risk their lives inside harsh regimes to spy for America are being killed and imprisoned on a significant scale.

Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials portrayed Ms. Witt’s indictment as a victory of sorts, lauding the exposure of a foreign spy after a multiyear probe. Yet the real story is not Ms. Witt’s indictment but her defection to Iran in 2013. She brought with her details of a secret communications system American handlers use to talk to their recruited agents.

The FBI fumbled the case in 2012 by warning Ms. Witt she might be targeted for recruitment by Iranian intelligence. A trained counterspy, she knew that the tip-off meant she was under investigation and surveillance. It likely set in motion her flight to Iran a year later. As she boarded the plane, she texted her handler: “I’m signing off and heading out! Coming home.” Other texts reveal she “told all” to an Iranian ambassador in Central Asia and had plans to go public in the manner of renegade National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

The indictment is largely symbolic, since the prospects of bringing the case to trial are slim to none. But it is one way for the FBI to dispose of the matter.

Officials did not detail the impact of Ms. Witt’s betrayal. Jay Taub, the FBI’s assistant director for national security, would say only that she became an “ideological” defector after converting to Islam. Her actions, he added, inflicted “serious damage to national security.”

According to prosecutors, Ms. Witt worked at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations from 2003-08 and then as a contractor, running an ultrasecret Special Access Program, or SAP, until August 2010. The program gave her access to details about counterintelligence operations, true names of recruited agents, and identities of U.S. intelligence operatives in charge of recruiting foreign agents. One program “allowed agents to communicate in the open without disclosing the nature of their operations,” the indictment states.

Ms. Witt left the contractor in August 2010 for unspecified reasons. In May 2011, Iranian state media announced that 30 people had been arrested as CIA spies and 42 others were suspected of involvement with U.S. intelligence.

It is not known how the agents were discovered, but a likely cause was a breakdown in agent-handler communications. Ms. Witt could conceivably have been involved. The indictment states that she provided defense information to Iran but does not say when. The spy charges cover the period from 2012-15. And that communications compromise appears to link the roundup in Iran to a second colossal intelligence failure under the Obama administration: the loss of all recruited agents in China.

Last year, the New York Times and Yahoo News both reported that between 20 and 30 recruited Chinese agents were killed or imprisoned between 2009 and 2013. Yahoo reported the loss was caused by a breach in an internet messaging system used to communicate with agents in Iran that spread to other countries. The Times blamed the loss on a former CIA officer, Jerry Chung Shin Lee, who was arrested in January 2018 and is suspected of passing along their names to China.

These recent losses follow decades of similar disasters. Aldrich Ames, a CIA counterintelligence officer, spied for Moscow and gave up the agency’s network of agents working against the Soviet Union and Russia between 1985 until his arrest in 1993. At nearly the same time, FBI agent Robert Hanssen, also a turncoat counterspy, gave over secrets on recruited agents to Moscow between 1979 and 2001.

Ana Montes, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s senior analyst on Cuba, had already been recruited to spy for Havana when she joined DIA in 1985. Until her arrest in 2001, she helped Cuba neutralize all recruited CIA agents in the country. Another failure compromised all recruited agents in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

These disasters and others can be traced to a lack of effective counterintelligence—finding and neutralizing foreign spies. Critics of the late CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton dismissed the efforts as “sickthink,” and since Angleton was ousted in the 1970s, counterintelligence has been the bastard stepchild of American intelligence.

Congress should demand quality controls on the $60 billion it appropriates for intelligence services each year. New and more effective counterintelligence programs should be a priority. A good first step would be to elevate the practice of neutralizing foreign spies to a strategic level of importance. This would involve better vetting and monitoring of those granted access to agent secrets, including after they leave government.

The most effective way to prevent further spy betrayals is to shift the focus toward offensive counterintelligence operations. That means devoting more people and funds to getting inside hostile spy services before they can penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies.

Mr. Gertz is senior editor of The Washington Free Beacon and national security columnist for The Washington Times. His most recent book is “iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Intel agencies not so intelligent
« Reply #671 on: February 19, 2019, 07:52:39 PM »
I wonder when she converted to Islam. Was she recruited by Iran at the same time?

Hoping Big Dog is still with us , , ,

An Indictment Exposes America’s Witless Intelligence Agencies
Monica Witt allegedly spied for Iran—but she defected in 2013, so she’ll never be brought to justice.
2 Comments
By Bill Gertz
Feb. 19, 2019 6:43 p.m. ET
The wanted poster for former U.S. Air Force counterintelligence official Monica Witt, who allegedly spied for Iran.
The wanted poster for former U.S. Air Force counterintelligence official Monica Witt, who allegedly spied for Iran. Photo: /Associated Press

U.S. officials revealed last week that a federal grand jury indicted Monica Witt, a former Air Force counterintelligence official, on charges of passing extremely sensitive secrets to agents of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The case highlights how broken the U.S. intelligence system has become. For more than 30 years it has demonstrated an inability to keep secrets, to protect itself from foreign penetrations by hostile spy services, or to prevent current and former officials from defecting.

The result: Brave foreign nationals who risk their lives inside harsh regimes to spy for America are being killed and imprisoned on a significant scale.

Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials portrayed Ms. Witt’s indictment as a victory of sorts, lauding the exposure of a foreign spy after a multiyear probe. Yet the real story is not Ms. Witt’s indictment but her defection to Iran in 2013. She brought with her details of a secret communications system American handlers use to talk to their recruited agents.

The FBI fumbled the case in 2012 by warning Ms. Witt she might be targeted for recruitment by Iranian intelligence. A trained counterspy, she knew that the tip-off meant she was under investigation and surveillance. It likely set in motion her flight to Iran a year later. As she boarded the plane, she texted her handler: “I’m signing off and heading out! Coming home.” Other texts reveal she “told all” to an Iranian ambassador in Central Asia and had plans to go public in the manner of renegade National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

The indictment is largely symbolic, since the prospects of bringing the case to trial are slim to none. But it is one way for the FBI to dispose of the matter.

Officials did not detail the impact of Ms. Witt’s betrayal. Jay Taub, the FBI’s assistant director for national security, would say only that she became an “ideological” defector after converting to Islam. Her actions, he added, inflicted “serious damage to national security.”

According to prosecutors, Ms. Witt worked at the Air Force Office of Special Investigations from 2003-08 and then as a contractor, running an ultrasecret Special Access Program, or SAP, until August 2010. The program gave her access to details about counterintelligence operations, true names of recruited agents, and identities of U.S. intelligence operatives in charge of recruiting foreign agents. One program “allowed agents to communicate in the open without disclosing the nature of their operations,” the indictment states.

Ms. Witt left the contractor in August 2010 for unspecified reasons. In May 2011, Iranian state media announced that 30 people had been arrested as CIA spies and 42 others were suspected of involvement with U.S. intelligence.

It is not known how the agents were discovered, but a likely cause was a breakdown in agent-handler communications. Ms. Witt could conceivably have been involved. The indictment states that she provided defense information to Iran but does not say when. The spy charges cover the period from 2012-15. And that communications compromise appears to link the roundup in Iran to a second colossal intelligence failure under the Obama administration: the loss of all recruited agents in China.

Last year, the New York Times and Yahoo News both reported that between 20 and 30 recruited Chinese agents were killed or imprisoned between 2009 and 2013. Yahoo reported the loss was caused by a breach in an internet messaging system used to communicate with agents in Iran that spread to other countries. The Times blamed the loss on a former CIA officer, Jerry Chung Shin Lee, who was arrested in January 2018 and is suspected of passing along their names to China.

These recent losses follow decades of similar disasters. Aldrich Ames, a CIA counterintelligence officer, spied for Moscow and gave up the agency’s network of agents working against the Soviet Union and Russia between 1985 until his arrest in 1993. At nearly the same time, FBI agent Robert Hanssen, also a turncoat counterspy, gave over secrets on recruited agents to Moscow between 1979 and 2001.

Ana Montes, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s senior analyst on Cuba, had already been recruited to spy for Havana when she joined DIA in 1985. Until her arrest in 2001, she helped Cuba neutralize all recruited CIA agents in the country. Another failure compromised all recruited agents in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

These disasters and others can be traced to a lack of effective counterintelligence—finding and neutralizing foreign spies. Critics of the late CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton dismissed the efforts as “sickthink,” and since Angleton was ousted in the 1970s, counterintelligence has been the bastard stepchild of American intelligence.

Congress should demand quality controls on the $60 billion it appropriates for intelligence services each year. New and more effective counterintelligence programs should be a priority. A good first step would be to elevate the practice of neutralizing foreign spies to a strategic level of importance. This would involve better vetting and monitoring of those granted access to agent secrets, including after they leave government.

The most effective way to prevent further spy betrayals is to shift the focus toward offensive counterintelligence operations. That means devoting more people and funds to getting inside hostile spy services before they can penetrate U.S. intelligence agencies.

Mr. Gertz is senior editor of The Washington Free Beacon and national security columnist for The Washington Times. His most recent book is “iWar: War and Peace in the Information Age.”

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
File this under “Posts that didn’t age well”
« Reply #672 on: March 24, 2019, 08:32:54 PM »
Am I to understand that the conservatives on this forum are willing to excuse Russian interference into the U.S. presidential election? If I am reading this correctly, consider me stunned.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: File this under “Posts that didn’t age well”
« Reply #673 on: March 24, 2019, 09:26:16 PM »
Am I to understand that the conservatives on this forum are willing to excuse Russian interference into the U.S. presidential election? If I am reading this correctly, consider me stunned.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #674 on: March 24, 2019, 11:09:45 PM »
The Russians DID interfere.  Haven't they always done so? 

This time, as we vigorously complained it was via Hillary, via $140M paid to the Clinton Foundation, via the Steele dossier, via releasing true emails from the hacked DNC server, and some $45K in Facebook trollery.

As I see it, it is probable they will be fg with us in 2020 too, only much more effectively e.g. with the new technology that allows for realistic looking CGI putting fake words in the mouth of video footage and the like.

This is only going to get worse.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #675 on: March 24, 2019, 11:25:07 PM »
They have always done so, and it was never an item of concern for the American left. UNTIL that became the narrative why Trump won. Right, BigDog?


https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/


The Russians DID interfere.  Haven't they always done so? 

This time, as we vigorously complained it was via Hillary, via $140M paid to the Clinton Foundation, via the Steele dossier, via releasing true emails from the hacked DNC server, and some $45K in Facebook trollery.

As I see it, it is probable they will be fg with us in 2020 too, only much more effectively e.g. with the new technology that allows for realistic looking CGI putting fake words in the mouth of video footage and the like.

This is only going to get worse.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12689
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #676 on: March 25, 2019, 05:52:17 AM »
The Russians DID interfere.  Haven't they always done so? 

This time, as we vigorously complained it was via Hillary, via $140M paid to the Clinton Foundation, via the Steele dossier, via releasing true emails from the hacked DNC server, and some $45K in Facebook trollery.
...

I never heard confirmation that the wikileaks emails came from the Russians.  For one thing, didn't Podesta give away his password?  He wasn't 'hacked'.

The Russian Facebook trollery looks just like the Left, amplifies them makes those views look like they are more widely held.  It was not worse than what was already happening, it was just more of it. 

On the Steele dossier, they were asked to interfere, paid to interfere.  As documented here, sources wrote that, not Steele.

On the hookers urination thing, they went too far.  That was the part that made the dossier famous, and look stupid.  Urination on n the bed that Obama slept in, because he was black?  Proving racism??  Good grief.  He is a basic womanizer, cheater, no reason to think anything weirder than that.  We tested the gullibility of liberals and it was an embarrassment.

Russians tried to sow discord more than pick a winner.  To the extent that they hated Hillary, they picked the wrong candidate.  Doesn't reflect well on their strategic intelligence.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #677 on: March 25, 2019, 07:32:44 AM »
I'd say their strategic intelligence hit a fg grand slam.  Hard to imagine a more destructive outcome than the one actually achieved.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Intel Matters
« Reply #678 on: March 25, 2019, 10:38:15 AM »
I'd say their strategic intelligence hit a fg grand slam.  Hard to imagine a more destructive outcome than the one actually achieved.

They can always count on the Left in this country.

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile





G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Famous But Incompetent (and Corrupt)
« Reply #684 on: October 08, 2019, 09:53:20 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/383651.php

As usual, no one will pay any serious penalty. Nice to be on the inner party tier of the criminal justice system.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Biting the hand at the other end of the leash; the real CIA
« Reply #686 on: October 18, 2019, 11:18:01 AM »
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/the_real_cia.html?fbclid=IwAR29yqAgwXXBvSQjqLKg7A5TzF1SVKMclE1ewHRTMRjSgaZBoWgr-aEFbUE#ixzz62dHeULtD&f

This article was brought to my attention by someone who had high security clearance while in government and was strongly supported by someone else who currently has high security clearance.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2019, 07:34:38 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Biting the hand at the other end of the leash; the real CIA
« Reply #687 on: October 18, 2019, 10:21:31 PM »
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/the_real_cia.html?fbclid=IwAR29yqAgwXXBvSQjqLKg7A5TzF1SVKMclE1ewHRTMRjSgaZBoWgr-aEFbUE#ixzz62dHeULtD&f

This article was brought to my attention by someone who had high security clearance while in government and was strongly supported by someone else who currently has high security clearance.

Absolutely correct.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10813
    • View Profile
CIA: arbiters of truth
« Reply #689 on: November 01, 2019, 05:37:50 AM »
"Thank God for the deep state"

what ?  what deep state?  I thought that concept is a delusional conspiracy?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/31/former-cia-acting-director-on-impeachment-inquiry-thank-god-for-the-deep-state/


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile
Haspel in a bind
« Reply #692 on: December 27, 2019, 01:11:46 PM »


Intel probe puts CIA’s Haspel in a bind
The review led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is making life uncomfortable for America’s cautious spy chief.

Gina Haspel
CIA Director Gina Haspel. | Win McNamee/Getty Images

By NATASHA BERTRAND

12/27/2019 05:03 AM EST

Facebook
Twitter
Link
More
The prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr to examine the origins of the Russia investigation is focusing much of his attention on the CIA, placing the agency’s director, Gina Haspel, at the center of a politically toxic tug-of-war between the Justice Department and the intelligence community.

The prosecutor, John Durham, has reportedly asked the CIA for former director John Brennan’s communications as he examines the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin intervened in the election specifically to help Donald Trump.

Story Continued Below
Barr has been skeptical of the agency’s conclusions about Putin’s motivations, despite corroboration by the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee and an adversarial review by former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Story Continued Below
But intelligence community veterans say the Durham probe could force Haspel to choose between protecting her agency from Trump’s wrath and bowing to Barr’s wishes; they point to FBI chief Chris Wray, who has found himself at odds with the president in recent weeks over a watchdog report about the bureau’s conduct in the Russia probe.

And they say the Barr-Durham probe represents overreach by an attorney general who seems to have already made up his mind and is bent on imposing his own skeptical view of the Russia investigation on the intelligence community.

Haspel, a veteran intelligence officer known for her fierce loyalty to the CIA and acute political antennae, has rarely made headlines during her 19-month tenure atop the nation’s top spy agency, turning her focus inward on building morale and boosting recruitment. That strategy has kept her out of Trump’s sights and largely protected the CIA’s more than 20,000 employees from the kinds of political attacks that have hobbled the FBI.

When it comes to Durham, Haspel is likely “confident there has been no serious wrongdoing, and will therefore find a means to cooperate” with the investigation, said John Sipher, a 28-year CIA veteran.

Trump often attacks the intelligence community, and said last summer that “the intelligence agencies have run amok” and needed to be reined in. But he’s never openly criticized Haspel, instead calling her “highly respected” and tweeting last year that “there is nobody even close to run the CIA!”


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
My highly respected nominee for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, has come under fire because she was too tough on Terrorists. Think of that, in these very dangerous times, we have the most qualified person, a woman, who Democrats want OUT because she is too tough on terror. Win Gina!

83.6K
3:04 AM - May 7, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
33.8K people are talking about this
Haspel’s plight, though, may depend on how deeply Durham investigates an uncorroborated theory pushed by Trump allies that a key player in the Russia probe, a Russia-linked professor named Joseph Mifsud, was actually a Western intelligence asset sent to discredit the Trump campaign — and that the CIA, under Brennan, was somehow involved.

Haspel was the CIA’s station chief in London in 2016 when the U.S. Embassy there was made aware of Mifsud’s contact with a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, by Australian diplomat Alexander Downer. Haspel was briefed on Downer’s outreach to the embassy, according to a person familiar with the matter, but it’s unclear whether she was then made aware of the FBI’s plans to interview him or knew about the bureau’s use of an informant in London.

An inspector general report released earlier this month said the embassy’s deputy chief of mission at the time briefed the FBI’s legal attache and another official—whose title is redacted, but is Haspel, according to another person familiar with the matter—on Downer’s outreach. The attache told the inspector general that Haspel, upon being briefed, said the Downer information sounded “like an FBI matter.”

One former intelligence official said it’s unlikely Haspel would have been read in to the FBI’s subsequent operation given how closely held it was within the bureau and the Justice Department. But Trump’s allies have been asking questions about what Haspel knew about the probe since before she was sworn in as director.

Barr, who has taken a hands-on approach to the Durham investigation, was reportedly in London over the summer discussing the probe with British intelligence officials. He told NBC that the purpose of his recent travel to the U.K. and other friendly foreign governments “was to introduce Durham to the appropriate people and set up a channel through which he could work with these countries.”

Gina Haspel sworn in
Gina Haspel is sworn in as CIA director with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in May 2018. | Mark Wilson/Getty Images

“A U.S. attorney doesn’t just show up to your doorstep in some of these countries and say ‘Hey, I want to talk to your intelligence people,” Barr said. “The countries wanted to initially talk to me to figure out, ‘What is this about? What are the ground rules? Is this going to be a criminal case?’”

Former CIA officials, however, said a U.S. attorney shouldn’t be showing up at a foreign government intelligence service’s doorstep at all.

“It is unprecedented and inappropriate to do this via Justice Department prosecutors, who will tend to apply the standards of a courtroom to the more nuanced, and often more challenging world of intelligence analysis,” said John McLaughlin, who served as both deputy director and acting director of the CIA from 2000 to 2004.

Sipher asked why such a review would be “done over the head of” the intelligence community’s inspector general.

“I find this troubling, and I suspect many inside the intelligence community do as well,” Sipher said, specifically pointing to the CIA’s Brennan records review. The inquiry “was initiated and sold in a partisan manner and this news only highlights that concern,” he said.

Another issue former officials have flagged: It isn’t clear whether Durham has consulted with the intelligence community inspector general, Michael Atkinson, as part of his review, which reportedly evolved into a criminal probe in October.

Normally, potential intelligence community misconduct is reviewed by an agency’s internal watchdog, who would then recommend criminal charges if warranted to a U.S. attorney with jurisdiction, noted Greg Brower, a former FBI assistant director.

 MOST READ
Gina Haspel
Intel probe puts CIA’s Haspel in a bind
How Will History Books Remember the 2010s?
AOC for president? The buzz has begun
‘We have a huge problem’: European tech regulator despairs over lack of enforcement
“It appears that the cart has been put before the horse. Here, Durham appears to be acting as a sort of super IG and prosecutor in one."

- Greg Brower, a former FBI assistant director

“It appears that the cart has been put before the horse,” said Brower. “Here, Durham appears to be acting as a sort of super IG and prosecutor in one. The difference: Durham works for the attorney general, while the IC IG, like any IG, operates independently from executive branch direction.”

In May, Trump gave Barr unprecedented authority to review the intelligence community’s “surveillance activities” during the 2016 election, issuing a sweeping declassification order that granted Barr extensive powers over the nation’s secrets.

The attorney general has since emerged as a chief protector and defender of the president, going so far as to disagree publicly with a finding by DOJ’s inspector general that the FBI’s Russia probe was properly predicated. And he’s now leaning on Durham’s investigation to produce a more fulsome picture of the intelligence community’s actions in 2016, he told Fox last week.

“He is looking at all the conduct, both before and after the election,” Barr said of Durham. “I certainly will rely on John.”


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Where are the Spies?
« Reply #694 on: January 02, 2020, 05:20:01 PM »
https://andmagazine-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/andmagazine.com/talk/2019/12/27/where-are-the-spies-three-recent-intel-failures/amp/

Note that the State of Wyoming has the same approximate population as the City of Baltimore, MD. Wyoming has some of the laxest gun laws in the US. Guess who has a higher homicide rate...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12689
    • View Profile
Re: Where are the Spies?
« Reply #695 on: January 02, 2020, 05:47:42 PM »
Note that the State of Wyoming has the same approximate population as the City of Baltimore, MD. Wyoming has some of the laxest gun laws in the US. Guess who has a higher homicide rate...

From particle theory:  Collisions increase with the square of density.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18060
    • View Profile
Re: Where are the Spies?
« Reply #696 on: January 02, 2020, 05:52:36 PM »
Note that the State of Wyoming has the same approximate population as the City of Baltimore, MD. Wyoming has some of the laxest gun laws in the US. Guess who has a higher homicide rate...

From particle theory:  Collisions increase with the square of density.

Do you think that if the residents of Wyoming were in a city the size of Baltimurder, that they would have the same crime rate?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12689
    • View Profile
Re: Where are the Spies?
« Reply #697 on: January 02, 2020, 06:02:10 PM »
"Do you think that if the residents of Wyoming were in a city the size of Baltimurder, that they would have the same crime rate?"

No.   But the people of Wyoming wouldn't choose to live in Baltimore.

Big cities draw in certain mobs of people with their main industry, giving out free sh*t.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51749
    • View Profile