If you smell something fishy these days, it's all the Red Herrings
being dragged in front of us.
All these accusations about who is spying on whom, reminds me of my
elder sister's accusations that her Care Givers are "Stealing her
Blind"! To which I tell her, "It could be worse than being stolen
Blind."
But here's the thing. My sister has a long history of thievery. From
picking up things in the homes of family and friends, to teaching her
youngest son to steal in stores. As she unfolds her most recent
episode, I keep in mind that the reason she believes everyone around
her are crooks is because she is one, herself.
And so, I look at my TV, or listen to my radio, and hear of all those
nasty crooks tampering with our most secret information systems, and I
tell me, "Sure, they most likely are." That is because we are doing
exactly the same thing to the other nations of the world. Friend and
Foe, alike. If we're not, then shame on us!
But it's a Red Herring! Trump "won" the election through our own
flawed election system. Remember, despite our government's claim to
the contrary, we have never had a, "one citizen, one vote" process.
Ballot tampering has always been part of our elections. Whether it is
done through intimidation or through vanishing ballots, or anything in
between, we do not have that wonderful clean election that we had been
taught about in our Third Grade Social Studies Class. It's time we
faced the awful Truth. We are just as good, and just as bad, as are
the people of any other nation on Earth. And by the way, we are not
as superior over other Life Forms, not created in our make believe
God's Image, as we want to believe.
If we don't get real, we'll destroy the planet for All Life, not just ours.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/12/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yesterday, I listened to a discussion between Robert Sheer and Binney,
can't
remember his first name but he's the person who worked for the NSA and whom
the FBI tried to terrorize because he was a whistle blower, about the
Russian Spying. Binney doesn't think, from the wording of the government's
statement about the information, and from his knowledge of how these things
work, that the information being reported, is actually significant.
Miriam
Borger writes: "The extraordinary but unverified documents published on
Tuesday on Donald Trump's ties with Moscow began life as a piece of
opposition research, which has become as much a part of US politics as yard
signs and coloured balloons."
President-elect Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
ALSO SEE: Explainer: What Is in the
Trump-Russia Dossier John McCain Passed to the FBI?
The Story of the Trump Dossier: Secret Sources, an Airport Rendezvous, and
John McCain
By Julian Borger, Guardian UK
11 January 17
What began as opposition research during the Republican primary slowly grew
from a covert investigation into an extraordinary but unverified global
story
The extraordinary but unverified documents published on Tuesday on Donald
Trump's ties with Moscow began life as a piece of opposition research,
which
has become as much a part of US politics as yard signs and coloured
balloons.
There is a small industry of research and investigative firms in
Washington,
typically staffed by a mix of former journalists and security officials,
adept at finding information about politicians that the politicians would
rather stay hidden. The firms often do not know who exactly is hiring them;
the request could come from a law firm acting on behalf of a client from
one
of the parties.
In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from
one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm
then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things
Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official,
with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow's spooks and
siloviki (securocrats).
By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the
Republican
primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that
had
hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the
Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition
research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all
they can and are looking for other ways to help.
By July, the counter-intelligence contractor had collected a significant
amount of material based on Russian sources who he had grown to trust over
the years - not just in Moscow, but also among oligarchs living in the
west.
He delivered his reports, but the gravity of their contents weighed on him.
If the allegations were real, their implications were overwhelming.
He delivered a set to former colleagues in the FBI, whose
counter-intelligence division would be the appropriate body to investigate.
It is believed he also passed a copy to his own country's intelligence
service, but it felt constrained in what action it could take and left it
up
to the Americans to do their own investigation and draw their own
conclusions.
As summer turned to autumn, the investigator was asked for more information
by the FBI but heard nothing back about any investigation. The bureau
seemed
obsessed instead with classified material that flowed through a private
email server set up by Clinton's aides. The FBI's director, James Comey,
threw the election into a spin 11 days before the vote by announcing his
investigators were examining newly discovered material.
The former intelligence official grew concerned that there was a cover-up
in
progress. On a trip to New York in October, he decided to pass the material
to the press. He met David Corn, the Washington editor of Mother Jones, who
first reported its existence on 31 October.
The FBI however continued to refuse to comment on the issue, despite
reports
that it had requested and perhaps acquired a warrant for further
investigation from the Foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court. The
silence was not altogether surprising. The FBI counter-intelligence
division, headquartered in Washington, is extremely secretive, much more so
than the New York field office, which had strong links to former prosecutor
and mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was by then working for Trump. The threat of
leaks from New York about Clinton emails had reportedly pushed Comey into
making his October surprise announcement.
In mid-November, the documents took another route into Washington that
ultimately led to them being mentioned in the joint intelligence report on
Russian interference that was delivered to President Obama and
President-elect Trump. On 18 November, the annual Halifax International
Security Forum opened in the Canadian city, bringing together serving and
former security and foreign policy officials from around the world.
Senator John McCain, a hawkish Republican, was there and was introduced to
a
former senior western diplomat who had seen the documents, knew their
source
and thought him highly reliable. McCain decided the implications were
sufficiently alarming to dispatch a trusted emissary, a former US official,
to meet the source and find out more.
The emissary hastily arranged a transatlantic flight and met the source at
the airport as arranged. (The Guardian has agreed not to specify the city
or
country where the meeting took place.) The meeting had a certain cold war
tradecraft to it, as he was told to look for a man with a copy of the
Financial Times. Having found each other, the retired counter-intelligence
officer drove the emissary to his house, where they discussed the documents
and their background.
The emissary flew back within 24 hours and showed McCain the documents,
saying it was hard to impossible to verify them without a proper
investigation. McCain said he was reluctant to get involved, lest it be
perceived as payback for insulting remarks Trump had made about him during
his rambunctious campaign.
However, on 9 December, McCain arranged a one-on-one meeting with Comey,
with no aides present, and handed them over.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about
their
accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has
been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency
regarding this issue," the senator said in a statement on Wednesday
morning.
It is not clear what underpinned the FBI's decision to include a summary of
the documents in its highly classified briefing to the president and
president-elect and their top staff, before the bureau had completed its
investigation. It may have been as a defensive measure, to prove for
posterity that it was not involved in a cover-up, or because its
investigators believed them to be credible.
Whatever the motive, it was quickly leaked - first to CNN, which reported
on
the material on Wednesday. That triggered a controversial decision by
BuzzFeed to publish an unredacted version of the documents on its website.
It is unclear where the BuzzFeed version came from. The author of the
reports had been insistent on blotting out references to his Russian
sources
in the copies he gave to the press, including the Guardian, out of fear for
their safety. The unredacted version could have come from the original
client, who commissioned the research, or from intermediaries between the
counter-intelligence contractor and the client.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
President-elect Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-oppositi
on-research-john-mccainhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump
-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain
ALSO SEE: Explainer: What Is in the
Trump-Russia Dossier John McCain Passed to the FBI?
The Story of the Trump Dossier: Secret Sources, an Airport Rendezvous, and
John McCain
By Julian Borger, Guardian UK
11 January 17
What began as opposition research during the Republican primary slowly grew
from a covert investigation into an extraordinary but unverified global
story
he extraordinary but unverified documents published on Tuesday on Donald
Trump's ties with Moscow began life as a piece of opposition research,
which
has become as much a part of US politics as yard signs and coloured
balloons.
There is a small industry of research and investigative firms in
Washington,
typically staffed by a mix of former journalists and security officials,
adept at finding information about politicians that the politicians would
rather stay hidden. The firms often do not know who exactly is hiring them;
the request could come from a law firm acting on behalf of a client from
one
of the parties.
In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from
one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm
then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things
Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official,
with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow's spooks and
siloviki (securocrats).
By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the
Republican
primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that
had
hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the
Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition
research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all
they can and are looking for other ways to help.
By July, the counter-intelligence contractor had collected a significant
amount of material based on Russian sources who he had grown to trust over
the years - not just in Moscow, but also among oligarchs living in the
west.
He delivered his reports, but the gravity of their contents weighed on him.
If the allegations were real, their implications were overwhelming.
He delivered a set to former colleagues in the FBI, whose
counter-intelligence division would be the appropriate body to investigate.
It is believed he also passed a copy to his own country's intelligence
service, but it felt constrained in what action it could take and left it
up
to the Americans to do their own investigation and draw their own
conclusions.
As summer turned to autumn, the investigator was asked for more information
by the FBI but heard nothing back about any investigation. The bureau
seemed
obsessed instead with classified material that flowed through a private
email server set up by Clinton's aides. The FBI's director, James Comey,
threw the election into a spin 11 days before the vote by announcing his
investigators were examining newly discovered material.
The former intelligence official grew concerned that there was a cover-up
in
progress. On a trip to New York in October, he decided to pass the material
to the press. He met David Corn, the Washington editor of Mother Jones, who
first reported its existence on 31 October.
The FBI however continued to refuse to comment on the issue, despite
reports
that it had requested and perhaps acquired a warrant for further
investigation from the Foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court. The
silence was not altogether surprising. The FBI counter-intelligence
division, headquartered in Washington, is extremely secretive, much more so
than the New York field office, which had strong links to former prosecutor
and mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was by then working for Trump. The threat of
leaks from New York about Clinton emails had reportedly pushed Comey into
making his October surprise announcement.
In mid-November, the documents took another route into Washington that
ultimately led to them being mentioned in the joint intelligence report on
Russian interference that was delivered to President Obama and
President-elect Trump. On 18 November, the annual Halifax International
Security Forum opened in the Canadian city, bringing together serving and
former security and foreign policy officials from around the world.
Senator John McCain, a hawkish Republican, was there and was introduced to
a
former senior western diplomat who had seen the documents, knew their
source
and thought him highly reliable. McCain decided the implications were
sufficiently alarming to dispatch a trusted emissary, a former US official,
to meet the source and find out more.
The emissary hastily arranged a transatlantic flight and met the source at
the airport as arranged. (The Guardian has agreed not to specify the city
or
country where the meeting took place.) The meeting had a certain cold war
tradecraft to it, as he was told to look for a man with a copy of the
Financial Times. Having found each other, the retired counter-intelligence
officer drove the emissary to his house, where they discussed the documents
and their background.
The emissary flew back within 24 hours and showed McCain the documents,
saying it was hard to impossible to verify them without a proper
investigation. McCain said he was reluctant to get involved, lest it be
perceived as payback for insulting remarks Trump had made about him during
his rambunctious campaign.
However, on 9 December, McCain arranged a one-on-one meeting with Comey,
with no aides present, and handed them over.
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about
their
accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has
been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency
regarding this issue," the senator said in a statement on Wednesday
morning.
It is not clear what underpinned the FBI's decision to include a summary of
the documents in its highly classified briefing to the president and
president-elect and their top staff, before the bureau had completed its
investigation. It may have been as a defensive measure, to prove for
posterity that it was not involved in a cover-up, or because its
investigators believed them to be credible.
Whatever the motive, it was quickly leaked - first to CNN, which reported
on
the material on Wednesday. That triggered a controversial decision by
BuzzFeed to publish an unredacted version of the documents on its website.
It is unclear where the BuzzFeed version came from. The author of the
reports had been insistent on blotting out references to his Russian
sources
in the copies he gave to the press, including the Guardian, out of fear for
their safety. The unredacted version could have come from the original
client, who commissioned the research, or from intermediaries between the
counter-intelligence contractor and the client.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
