ABOUT THAT RUSSIAN ‘SPY’
Kimberly A. Strassel Wall Street Journal 9-13-19
Posting note: MIL-ED, over the last several years , has hosted much discussion which cast considerable doubt on the findings of John Brennan's and James Comey's" selected" committee who it was said had reported " Putin's direct involvement".
Since the start of the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy, we’ve seen a pattern: On the eve of any report or fact that might undermine that narrative, the forces behind the FBI investigation leak a “bombshell” claim designed to further justify their actions. Bear this in mind when reading the new desperate—and highly irresponsible—reports about that supposed “high-value” Russian spy.
First CNN, and now a volley of outlets, are claiming that the U.S. government in 2017 was forced to pull out—or “exfiltrate”—a supremely covert Russian source. According to reports, this source had sent information to the U.S. for decades, had risen high in the Russian national-security infrastructure, and had access to Russian President Vladimir Putin. More notable: All the stories, to the last, stress that this source was crucial to U.S. intelligence officials’ alarm and reaction to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
A fight has since broken out over the reason the U.S. moved to extract the source. CNN (ludicrously) claims it is because President Donald Trump mishandled classified information. Every other outlet cites officials noting their concern that the U.S. media (in thrall to the collusion narrative) might blow the source’s cover. But this brouhaha is a side issue to the vastly more consequential point: There’s a reason this story is appearing now, and therefore a reason to doubt its full accuracy.
At the beginning of 2018, as Republicans prepared to expose the degree to which the Clinton-funded Steele dossier had informed the FBI’s Trump counterintelligence investigation, the leakers suddenly put out a new claim: It wasn’t the dossier that mattered but a curious episode involving a third-tier Trump aide named George Papadopoulos. When, in the spring of 2018, conservative media discovered that the FBI had employed a spy against the Trump campaign, the leakers got out ahead. The ensuing stories blew the identity of the (ahem) “informant,” and cast the spying in the most positive, patriotic light.
And hey, ho, here we are on the eve of a Justice Department inspector general’s report that may well render a dim view of the FBI’s decision to obtain surveillance warrants against U.S. citizens based on opposition research from the rival political campaign. And suddenly, the very same reporters and media outlets that brought us those collusion doozies are reporting (based, again, on anonymous “former” officials) that actually the U.S. intelligence community had far more than just a dossier! It had a supersecret Russian spy! Of course it knew what it was doing!
Even aside from the timing, there are reasons to be skeptical of these reports. Don’t forget, any number of Republicans were wary of Mr. Putin well before 2016, and were dogging CIA director John Brennan for details of the autocrat’s intentions. Congressional Republicans tell me they’ve never seen any intelligence product that suggests U.S. officials received regular reports from a highly placed Russian source on the subjects at issue.
Nothing in this story adds up or speaks well of U.S. intelligence agencies. Presumably, any high-ranking source would have been able to disavow what we now know are the dossier’s false claims of a sprawling Kremlin-Trump plot that involved Mr. Putin, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Michael Cohen, the Rosneft oil company and many Russian government officials and oligarchs. Yet the FBI proceeded as if the dossier were true. Either the superspy missed the obvious, or the superspy wasn’t that high-up, or U.S. intelligence didn’t think much of what the superspy had to say.
It’s possible the reports contain an element of truth—potentially blown up to provide cover for the rogue counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. I have no direct reporting on the source. Yet the cynical decision to leak this information has already had grave consequences. Within a day, reporters were outside the D.C. home of a man assumed to be the source—in possession of his name, history and background. Western sources whose covers are blown go on to write books. Russian sources who defect or who are exposed as spies end up poisoned or dead. This is among the most egregious leaks in modern history.
Which means the CIA and the Justice Department have an obligation. First, to set the record straight about this source—to the extent they can. Second, to make clear that they are prioritizing a leak investigation—to track down, charge and send to jail those who helped to expose (in their own words) a vital Russian asset. Especially because this leak wasn’t done with any useful purpose. It was done with the craven and cowardly goal of shifting a political narrative.
We keep hearing from the supporters of former FBI Director Jim Comey and Mr. Brennan about their supposed nobility and high-mindedness. They say their only interest is in safeguarding the country. Maybe at some point they could act like they mean it.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment