Blog powered by Typepad

« 'An enemy to theatre'! | Main | What is the Italian for 'the loonies are running the asylum'? »

Thursday, 24 May 2018


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

Don't worry, Washington already has now that Obama is gone. To that end, India is going to become more aware and active as Paki and China are not exactly their allies. Australia will not take kindly to this problem either. As for Iran...wreck their currency and back the population in their final push to overthrow the Mothers...well Mullahs. Fund Islamic radicals in Western China to cause mass disruption- the is what the CIA and other spy agencies are for.

Whilst I agree with most of Whitewall's comment, Muslims within China are currently being sent to re-education camps. Radicalising them could be difficult. OTOH, get news of that to Iran and/or Pakistan and the mooted alliance should face some difficulty.

Don't forget about the Russians:

Bob, do me a favour and don't deposit Chinese 'agitprop' here at D&N. The next thing you'll be doing is quoting 'The Grauniad'!

David, just trying to add diversity to the 'Zero Hedge' agitprop. Have you ever read the comments there? Jeez.

On a selective basis I find the Zero Hedge site pretty damn good and, no, I don't read the commentary, I get enough of that reading the hysterical rubbish over at Carpenter's site!

...not to mention some of the rubbish on your own site! hahaha

MISSRED!! Well I never!

Miss Red, I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked that you could cast such aspersions on some of the finest minds in Blogdom!

:ahem: I said SOME and I am sure I never meant to disparage the fine minds that mostly linger here.
My word, Gentlemen, you must allow a lady some sense.

David, if you'll excuse my saying so, some of the trolling at Carpenter's is a little below par lately too. We've known for months the Russia probe began when a drunk George Popodopoulous mouthed off to an Aussie diplomat who contacted American intel. Obama didn't order an investigation into President Chaotica as you implied over there. You should know better than to repeat anything coming from the slow-moving train wreck of bovine manure haulers that is the current White House. You'll hurt your credibility and effectiveness.

Don't blame me, Bob, I was merely quoting the NYT:

"The F.B.I.’s thinking crystallized by mid-August, after the C.I.A. director at the time, John O. Brennan, shared intelligence with Mr. Comey showing that the Russian government was behind an attack on the 2016 presidential election. Intelligence agencies began collaborating to investigate that operation. The Crossfire Hurricane team was part of that group but largely operated independently, three officials said."

"Operated independently", yeeeeeeeeeees, quite!

David, well there you go. Quoting the NYT hurts your credibility too.

"We've known for months the Russia probe began when a drunk George Popodopoulous mouthed off to an Aussie diplomat who contacted American intel."

No Bob. Information developed subsequent to the House Intel Committee Republicans release of their four page memo shows the initial FISA warrant instituting surveillance on Carter Page occurred fully a month (at least) prior to Papadopoulos' throwing the drunk with the Australian diplo. What's made the whole sorry mess so confusing was/is that that was only when the FBI *officially* got involved. You've seen perhaps Andrew McCarthy's follow-on research into Crossfire Hurricane?

"The quick take on the 4,100-word opus is that the Gray Lady “buried the lede.” Fair enough: You have to dig pretty deep to find that the FBI ran “at least one government informant” against the Trump campaign — and to note that the Times learned this because “current and former officials” leaked to reporters the same classified information about which, just days ago, the Justice Department shrieked “Extortion!” when Congress asked about it."

"But that’s not even the most important of the buried ledes. What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign."

(Of course the public record might be forgiven as, the Intel Committee's dependence on classified stuff where so much was unjustifiably redacted - McCabe's spending $70,000 smackaroos on a conference table getting blackened ostensibly owing to, unlike that EPA feller spending near the same amount [also office furniture] getting front-paged on the NYT because: McCabe's furniture purchase becoming public was, "a threat to National Security!" ... Yeah right.)

At any rate - It would now appear that it wasn't "merely the FBI" got this whole big mess into gear but rather, the genesis of this whole sorry story owes its birth in the minds of those occupying and controlling the narrative from within but one branch of the "co-equal branches of the US government" - the Executive presided over by one Barack Obama.

And one John Brennan. Especially John Brennan, bless his heart.

Some background where Mr. Brennan is concerned:

"The career of John Brennan, the current Agency director, is instructive. A DI analyst by background, he played the Langley, then Beltway, game effectively, securing plum staff jobs along the way up, including Chief of Station Riyadh (a rare job for an analyst), then riding to the very top by ingratiating himself with President Bush, then with President Obama."

"Brennan, a skilled politician who has Obama’s ear, adheres to the view that what ails CIA are “stovepipes” — what cynics term “cylinders of excellence” — that separate the spooks (the Directorate of Operations or DO) and the geeks (the Directorate of Intelligence or DI). Breaking the 1947-era china, then, will fix all this, or so the theory goes."

Of course Bob you'll protest "Obama never weaponized any doggone arm of the civilian-centric enforcement agencies" neglecting, too of course - or perhaps better stated, outright denying that such things as transferring possession of a number of those automatic weapons you're always on about directly into the control of Mexican drug cartels which then got a number of Mexican civilians (as well as some US Border Patrol guys) into the ground.

And Lois Lerner - no big deal there either?


Yes, I mentioned when the investigation formally began. There might be other background we don't know about yet. In fact, there's a good chance of it since new details seem to be emerging every few days.

The charges that Black Hitler ordered an investigation or "implanted" a "spy" are conspiracy theories. No credible source credits them as far as I'm concerned, but of course you can believe whatever you want. However, can you explain why the FBI mentioned the investigation into Hillary during the campaign but not the one into Trump? Obama, Comey, and the intel services in general have gotten a lot of criticism about that.

"However, can you explain why the FBI mentioned the investigation into Hillary during the campaign but not the one into Trump?"

Heck Bob, I was kinda figuring you'd ask something far more difficult but since you've posed it that way I'll try my best.

Criminal Investigations: - Such as that which the Hillary fuss was all about was of the nature of a "law enforcement" task. Criminal investigations (and Bob, I think it might be helpful were you to inquire of your State Trooper friend) may be publicized - consider an 'Amber-Alert' wherein during the active portion a LE agency might ask for tips of the public - but more often not, think the John Gotti takedown. In other words, alerting the public to an ongoing criminal investigation is an option.

Another point which ought be in mind where criminal investigations are concerned is that, Fourth Amendment applies.

Counterintelligence Operations: - Unlike such as the aforementioned criminal investigations There Is No Requirement That An Actual Crime Must Be The Predicate for the opening. In counterintelligence ops there is no need for the "investigators" to be concerned with the Fourth as, the subject[s] of the inquiry are not (except under very "strict" extralegal circumstances) US Citizens - think Anwar al-Awlaki.

Too where counterintel ops are concerned there's where FISA stuff becomes applicable and these sorts of things very often involve the CIA.

And generally Bob, insofar as personal experience might be helpful in my explaining the differences between the two sorts of ops - there sometimes can be "a forty-year public disclosure absolute prohibition" barring anyone who is in possession of any relevant information on whatever happened wherever from say, getting some "financial boost" in his declining years by getting the CIA to clear his manuscript.

"The charges that Black Hitler ordered an investigation or "implanted" a "spy" are conspiracy theories. No credible source credits them."

Of course Bob in that clip one must decide for oneself whether the former Harvard Professor Dershowitz to student Toobin has the better take than former student Toobin's protestations to his former Professor. CNN's Jim Sciutto appears to think they're both credible.

Then there is also the question of the former Federal Prosecutor of the Blind Sheik, Andrew McCarthy's credibility you may, may not, accept:

Depends on whatever is the particular blog-commentor's predisposition I suppose.


Dershowitz is a publicity hound, contrarian and Fox News commentator. It's hard to take his opinion too seriously. The National Review is also not known as an unbiased source. Your explanation about counterintelligence operations makes sense, though. I'll look into it.


"The National Review is also not known as an unbiased source."

Perhaps Bob, that is the NRO as a whole afterall there is that Buckley legacy but when the author of that link I've posted happens to be one Andrew McCarthy who also, as it happens prosecuted cases developed by both Directors FBI Mueller first and secondly Comey you stick to that assertion?


Fox News Channel also has some good reporters on the straight news programs. The problem is mixing straight reporting with opinion. I quote your link: "Think of Barack Obama, dyed-in-the-wool leftist, insisting he’s just a pragmatic, non-ideological problem-solver."

What exactly does McCarthy mean? Does he offer any example or proof? No, it's just prejudicial language. Straight news outlets wouldn't let a writer do a first-person editorial that way. Mr. McCarthy has a right to his opinions, but expressing them limits his credibility.

He then goes on to mock the DOJ and intel services: "In the Trump–Russia affair, officials of the Obama-era intelligence agencies suggest that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was in a traitorous conspiracy with the Kremlin. What grounds? They’d rather not say. You’ll just have to trust them as well-meaning, non-partisan pros who (all together now) can’t be expected to divulge methods and sources."

That's just wrong:

Also, the public part of the investigation didn't begin until after Trump was in office.


Regarding Mr. McCarthy's "mixing with opinion" you'll perhaps have noted former President Obama's very recent insisting that, "I didn't have scandals"?

Reckon Bob Obama's saying so was fact or opinion? (Perhaps you'll have noted Clarence Page's piece primarily concerned with the recent pardoning of that early 20th century boxer?)

"Also, the public part of the investigation didn't begin until after Trump was in office."

True enough.

Though I think Bob you'd be well served to read comprehensively the link David's provided above toward Mr. Steyn's opining.

And perhaps, this:

Of course I fully accept Bob you'll surely be insisting "Hogwash" too!

Oops Bob, I oughta paid closer attention to your word choice in your final sentence of 27 May @ 1417 ... "investigation" ...

You'll recall your request @ 26 May 1513 that I took a shot at?

Investigation or Operation?


I take your point that "investigation" and "operation" have specific meanings within the intelligence community and law, but it seems they've been used interchangeably everywhere else. Lee Smith's piece is beyond hogwash. It's stone cold crazy conspiracy mongering. The claim the Steele Dossier was used to begin the investigation was disproved when the news of Carter Page, but especially Popodopoulis, was made public. The Federalist is definitely not a straight news operation and doesn't even try to act like one.

Some of Trump's harshest critics are Republicans, and Republican leadership has continued to support the Mueller investigation. Don't be surprised if the party eventually dumps Trump to save itself the way they did Nixon.

Oh Bob?

I just noted your offered Axios Timeline being dated April 3rd. I would suggest that the staff of Axios might be served by taking a gander at the more recent NYT reporting (at the least) and update their timeline accordingly.

Newer revelations appear to be gaining in both numbers and speed.


"The claim the Steele Dossier was used to begin the investigation was disproved when the news of Carter Page, but especially Popodopoulis, was made public."

No Bob, nothing about the "when" of the investigation has been either, proved or disproved - we'll have to wait for Mr. Mueller to provide that, or possibly, IG Horowitz - but given the latter's assignment has been added to it may well be the former finishes sooner.

However we might just be able to discern "a little something in the pudding" ... I admit Bob our individual experiences might put you at something of a disadvantage here but it can't be helped ... Do you recall the reporting (and I think backed up in Congressional testimony) that a certain Obama era NSC advisor Susan Rice emailing herself on the date of Trump's inauguration? The content of which laid out that an NSC meeting had taken place with "the principles in attendance" and further stating very explicitly that, "The President insisted that the operation be done by the book"? You can probably Bob, wiki what is meant by the term "principles" in regard to a meeting of the National Security Council.


It is extremely unfortunate that the terms investigation and operation have been screwed into "the familyway."

Sorry to have to disagree, JK, but for a few months (at least it seemed like months) Trump & Co. were claiming the looking into his campaign connections to Russia were based only on the Steele dossier and that it had been funded by Democrats. The first part is a complete lie and the second a half-truth. Steele was originally hired as an oppo researcher by Republicans. After Trump won the nomination Democrats bought the info.

Trump has been doing something similar lately by claiming everyone investigating him is a Democrat. There must be people who want to believe that, but it's laughably false.

Can you post a link to the Susan Rice story? I'm not sure what you're writing about.

I'll need return to this later Bob as just now I have before me a drive to pick up my Mom from a flight from Austin (TX) to visit my youngest sister's children.

Okay Bob,

Let me begin by stating I erred in my 27 May at 1748 assertion that NatSec Head Rice made mention by use of my word "operation." I'd made my admission in my 1748 or even in my 1915 had I taken the time to read the Grassley dot gov material - in truth all I took time to do was type "Susan Rice emails herself" into Search and then paste the link so as not to leave you in quivering suspense while I drove to and from the airport.

Still - like Senators Grassley and Graham I myself find it "odd" that one of the very last acts in Miss Rice's "official capacity" would be to send herself such an email. I note too and especially that, at least in part, some (significant?) portion of that email "remains classified" - You realize the very likely import of that Bob?

Well Bob if you do not I'm quite comfortable in asserting the two Senators do. Elsewise why would they bother including their item #11?

It is too noteworthy that the Senators in their letter to Miss Rice included the sentence "In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed “by the book,” substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed “by the book.”"

I say "noteworthy" because as events have proved some eight weeks later this:

Oh and Bob, so as not to fail to note your sorrow over finding yourself disagreeing with me so - that's perfectly fine Bob, and actually I would be really really surprised if you'd agreed. However in amongst your explaining "Trump & Co were claiming" (which doesn't surprise or disappoint me at all) you go on to state, "Steele was originally hired by ... Republicans."

Not exactly. Actually it was the Washington Free Beacon organization. And I'd suggest Bob, were you to accept the mission, a piddling little bit of research into the backgrounds of some number of the founders of that organization will prove illuminating to yourself.

I'd do it for you but the exercise will do you good.

The comments to this entry are closed.