CIA to Trump: we have you in our gunsights

As with many things in politics, you have to possess the ability to read between the lines. A new story from the WaPo made me conduct such an examination.

First, the story from the

Intelligence chiefs briefed Trump and Obama on unconfirmed claims Russia has compromising information on president-elect

by Greg Miller

A classified report delivered to President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump last week included a section summarizing allegations that Russian intelligence services have compromising material and information on Trump’s personal life and finances, U.S. officials said.

The officials said that U.S. intelligence agencies have not corroborated those allegations, but believed that the sources involved in the reporting were credible enough to warrant inclusion of their claims in the highly classified report on Russian interference in the presidential campaign.

If true, the information suggests that Moscow has assembled damaging information — known in espionage circles by the Russian term “kompromat” — that conceivably could be used to coerce the next occupant of the White House. The claims were presented in a two-page summary attached to the full report, an addendum that also included allegations of ongoing contact between members of Trump’s inner circle and representatives of Moscow.

I recommend you read the rest of the article. The information being revealed between the lines of the story indicates, to me, a rocky road coming for President-elect Trump.

Some history, then a conclusion.

It’s no surprise that I remain skeptical concerning the “Russian hacking” of the American election, resulting in the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Demorats tried throwing every excuse imaginable onto the political wall in order to see what would stick, to include recounts for Hillary Clinton under the pretext of their being for Jill Stein, talk radio and Fox News, the Electoral College, FBI Director James Comey, misogyny on the part of females (of all things), and fake news — to encompass the Drudge Report, which is nothing more than an aggregator of news and frequently features sites such as CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun, Boston Globe, LA Times and more. If Drudge is “fake” then most certainly those other outlets are as well. They have also been saying “Russia Russia Russia” every day since November 8th.

The corollary glory of it all is that, particularly with regard to fake news, much of it has blossomed in the other direction. Time and again the true purveyors of fake news have been proven to be the American Media Maggots and not alternative news sources. The AMM have lost their “gatekeeper” status and desperately seek to lock it back up. They are quaking and frightened to their very core because they are losing control and cash.

That said, the theme that somehow Russia hacked the election and not only favored but enabled Donald Trump to win has its proponents and its detractors. Proponents would obviously include Hillary Clinton, Demorats and the American Media Maggots because, in their minds, it certainly had nothing to do with the quality of the candidate herself or the way the campaign was managed.

Detractors or skeptics would include myself and, well, a few other tens of thousands of persons.

First, I developed information from one source (corroborated by a similar intelligence source on the opposite coast) that the NSA was responsible (read here please) for the hacks, and this was supported by Judge Andrew Napolitano — from HRC’s mishandling of GAMMA class intelligence. Read this.

Then Julian Assange (he of Wikileaks creation) came out and straight-up stated that Russia was not connected to the hacking of the DNC and Podesta’s emails at all. Assange, being the recipient of the trove of materials should, one may conclude, know. The release of the information appealed to Assange because, after all, Hillary Rodham Clinton stated she would like to have had him killed with a drone strike. That would certainly seem sufficient to take HRC off Assange’s Christmas card list.

The FBI said the Russians were not responsible. Then Obama said the Russians were not responsible. A UK diplomat said it wasn’t the Russians. Who to believe?

Now they are responsible. The party line is that “17 intelligence agencies say Russia was the source.” With, again, little or no clear evidence to back up the claims.

There was another person along the way with a healthy skepticism about the Russians being involved in the DNC hack and the hacking of the US presidential election. Donald Trump.

The meme is that the CIA, the DNI and the rest of the US Intelligence Community would not politicize intelligence except that, well, yes they would. And have. All the time. This is not finger-pointing at the line-level agents, processors or analysts. This is finger-pointing at the upper echelons of the Intelligence Community. As in: they decide what information to release to those who base policy and decisions upon intelligence take.

It’s no secret that Donald Trump has angered the lofty halls of the US Intelligence Community. They don’t care to have their character or their veracity questioned or second-guessed.

So Tuesday’s WaPo article — which contained, they admit, much speculation and little fact, could be a cautionary tale, a little sub-frequency IC message to President-elect Donald Trump: you’re in our gunsights.

One has to think that the source of whatever information “Russia may possess” about Trump personally could be the USIC itself.

Charles Krauthammer said on Tuesday:

“When you get these spy-vs-spy leaks, you can’t believe anybody because they’re all lying and that’s what they do for a living, so you never know which side is lying. But I think that the very fact this story has surfaced, is a way for the CIA to be telling Trump: you mess with us, we have a lot of information we can mess with you.”

Then, for God’s sake, there is this.

The bottom line is: there are so many political machinations on so many levels for so many mixed and cross-purposed reasons that it is all very clear.

As clear as mud.

Still and all: Donald Trump, beware.



9 thoughts on “CIA to Trump: we have you in our gunsights

  1. Remember, it’s not the CIA, it’s the Obama appointed chief of CIA. It’s not “17 intelligence agencies”, it’s the Obama appointed chiefs of those agencies.

    The fact that we know anything about this at all is proof that the intelligence was created with the intention of leaking it to the press, who would naturally give it front page coverage. So… Fake news.

  2. The first action Trump needs to take regarding the CIA is to fire Brennan and arrest him for treason. Brennan is Muzzie scum who has been working with Obama to bring down this nation. In CIA terms Brennan needs to be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

  3. Heads MUST roll in the leadership of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Dept, etc. Although people in these positions historically get the benefit of the doubt and were generally well qualified, it has become a political circus on the highest order with Obama and Hillary at the helm. Buckle up for 2017 you say BZ, I’m testing my emergency airbag connections too.

  4. The arrogance of these people is matched by their stupidity.

    Mr. Trump sent a clear message when he said, to all, repeat all, the political appointed ambassadors on day one of my administration, “You are fired”. A group who probably believed they are “important” people.

    As to the intelligence community, anyone not protected by civil service can be neutered by Mr. Trump revoking their security clearances. You have blog readers that understand how this works. I must believe Mr. Trump has the power to take this action.

    No security clearance, no access to information. Want to bet these arrogant fools didn’t think that through?

    • One further thought. I once was feeling my oats and made the mistake of telling a boss that, “I would be hard to replace”.

      His response? “WHEN I replace you, one of three outcomes will occur. Your successor will do a worse job than you, your successor will do a better job than you, or your successor will do about as good a job as you. Anyway you look at it, the odds are 2-1 in my favor, and I’ll go to Vegas with those odds any day”.

      Point, or course, is none of the “intelligence” high flyers are irreplaceable.

  5. I am positive that President Trump will replace the Head and also many, many employees. He and his newly chosen “advisers” will make things happen that President Trump wants to happen.
    We ill have a new Chief in a few days, and it will be fun watching and reading about who goes out the door!

Comments are closed.