It took me a embarrassing long time to see the hand behind wikileaks. I am a naive person.
What hand.
Whelp.
Rachel Maddow had a good segment on this last night. Skip to 2:50 if you want to skip some of the backstory.
This whole situation is about as clear as mud. The motivation for Russia to move against members of their own intelligence community could be anything and what they state publicly is almost certainly not the truth or is carefully crafted to serve a specific purpose.
If, for the sake of amusement, you take it at face value and assume that a US intelligence asset was compromised and then imagine a scenario where the new administration may have directly or indirectly compromised that asset, imagine what the mood inside the CIA would be.
But, again, I doubt we’ll ever know the real story here. This is like a le Carre novel come to life.
A lot of ex-CIA/Intel people seem to think this is exactly what happened.
Would it not be more logical that they traced the leak of Putin’s involvement in the hacks?
Would be a more reasonable deduction to me.
Given that the US intel community has said to our allies not to give us any intel they don’t want the Russians to have… not really.
I’m not calling your claim out, but am curious to read more about this. Any good articles that aren’t written by some ridiculous Forbes Contributor or something?
I think I didnt phrase it properly.
You verify intelligence you get from your sources. For the intelligence agencies to confidently state that Putin was personally responsible for the hacks. It means that the asset was close to Putin.
When you announce findings like this, the counter intelligence can narrow the sources quite a bit just based on who is present when Putin order it.
Which is why it is far more reasonable to attribute the compromised intelligence assets to the leak about Putin’s involvement than to insist that it is Trump who betrayed the assets.
Assets are protected. What is suggested here is that CIA willingly gave up those assets based on Trump’s wishes. Even if the president wishes it, the agencies handlers would not agree, not even counting the directors and those who live an breath espionage.
Not really… it means the source has previously been reliable and have established their bona fides, which we’ve vetted to our liking. Entire counterintelligence operations exist to dangle these types of people in front of opposing services.
No, what’s suggested is that Trump and his inner circle have access to that information and they leaked it to the Russians.
It could be counter intel as well. Maybe with some hints from our side, maybe not. There is no way to know without being in the CIA/FSB really.
As far as sources and articles, there aren’t any really since that would definitely involve classified info. A lot of people who still have connections and clearances have been hinting at it, but nothing they can put on the table. Of course that’s the nature of the spy business. We wont know what really happened for decades, if ever.
Hmmm, from what I understand. The identity of assets are closely guarded. It’s not like there’s a list that you can query. Are the identities known beyong the handlers and the immediate supervisor snd possibly his boss?
Not saying it’s mopossible, but improbable that Trump’s people can get the identity of the assets. Certainly not as easy as how it’s made up to be.
You’re the one in Intelligence so I defer to you on this.
But I’m not sure of the protocol is for single source intelligence. From what I understand, it’s extreme high risk if you act on info you cannot verify with another source. I suppose that is to guard against exposures to double agents or compromised assets.
Kinda similar to what the Bush administration did during the propaganda period prior to the invasion of Iraq, leaking the Valerie Plame name to the press as retribution for her husband writing an op-ed in a newspaper?
Trump admin wouldn’t have had to leak the identity of the source; presumably they were briefed with non-public information regarding why the intelligence assessment was reliable and authoritative. If the Russians got any of that, it would help them get the source.
Few people know their identities, but as President, Trump can demand to be told. His briefers would recommend against it, but ultimately, they have to tell him if he insists.