Jump to content

What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?


triplehorn

Recommended Posts

Trump and Rudy's Ukraine scheme: it's worse than quid pro quo.  

The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

 

Quote

Each new revelation in the money-for-dirt scandal involving the White House and Ukraine appears to add another nail in the impeachment coffin. So far, however, the list of impeachable offenses has focused on whether President Donald Trump’s actions amounted to an illegal solicitation of foreign election interference, or more simply, a broader abuse of his power to secure a personal benefit.

While both of these are important (and impeachable), it’s critical that we not overlook the bigger purpose behind the president’s actions: The White House was attempting to employ an illegal, covert propaganda operation against the American public.

This is explicitly against the law. The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

As a former FBI counterintelligence agent, I know about propaganda operations because I investigated them. Most of my cases involved foreign “perception management” campaigns — covert activities designed to influence the attitudes and opinions of the American public toward particular issues that would benefit the intelligence service’s host country.

These activities pose a national security threat because, in an open society and a free marketplace of ideas, it is essential that people know the true source of information in order to assess credibility and critically evaluate its content — especially when they are exercising fundamental rights, like voting, based on it. Russia’s perception management campaign in the 2016 election is what led special counsel Robert Mueller to indict 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies for spreading misinformation on social media while posing as American groups and citizens.

The Ukraine saga shows how these tactics have been adopted by the Trump administration. Initially, the partial transcript between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House suggested that Trump’s main objective was to get Ukraine to open an investigation into alleged corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.

Ukrainian officials have confirmed there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either. But the goal, it seemed, was to use the law enforcement arm of a foreign country to go on a fishing expedition to dig up or manufacture the appearance of dirt, which could then potentially be used by Trump in his upcoming campaign. In other words, Trump appeared, based on his conversation with Zelensky, to be mainly interested in the fruits of a sham foreign investigation into the Bidens, which he could repurpose for his own benefit.

The administration’s focus wasn’t simply that Ukraine investigate Biden — it was that Ukraine publicly broadcast it would be conducting an investigation.

Last week, however, the House Intelligence Committee released a memo detailing behind-the-scenes text messages between State Department officials that tell a different story. In the texts, U.S. ambassadors Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland engage in an extended negotiation with Zelensky regarding the conditions of a potential visit to the White House.

The conditions do not merely involve a promise by Zelensky to open and pursue an investigation into the Bidens (which could be done quietly); rather, they convey to him that he must make a “public announcement” about these investigations in order to get a meeting with Trump. In other words, the administration’s focus wasn’t simply that Ukraine investigate Biden — it was that Ukraine publicly broadcast it would be conducting an investigation.

The focus on the messaging about the investigation, rather than on the substantive investigation per se, indicates that the Trump administration was interested in shaping public perception — specifically that of American voters. In fact, many of the texts between Volker and Sondland — in coordination with Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani — involve carefully tailoring Ukraine’s message to dovetail with Trump’s specific concerns: Investigating Burisma (the company affiliated with Hunter Biden) and “getting to the bottom of what happened” in the 2016 election by casting doubt on Russia’s role. The one-sided crafting of the announcement to be given by Ukraine is evidenced by Zelensky’s pushback, who on August 10 insisted on a date for a White House visit before committing to a statement announcing an investigation explicitly referencing these two points, according to the committee’s memo.

The most important feature of the back and forth between the State Department and Ukraine is their insistence that the public announcement comes from Ukraine alone. It’s not unusual for U.S. officials to be involved in crafting a statement with a foreign country, but typically they are publicly issued as joint statements. Here, however, nothing about the proposed statement, which was drafted and proposed by the State Department in coordination with Giuliani, indicated that the U.S. precipitated or participated in its creation in any way. In intelligence terms, this is called black propaganda.

Black propaganda attempts to conceal the true source of information so that the target (in this case, the American public) cannot accurately assess the credibility of the message or the motives of the source behind it. By having the information emanate from a separate and more credible outlet, the target audience is more likely to believe it.

A unilateral statement from Zelensky would manipulate the American public into believing that Ukraine had independently reached the conclusion that there was a basis to investigate the Bidens and the origins of the 2016 U.S. election interference. By cloaking his own role and motives behind the statement of a foreign country, Trump could corroborate his own claims and have “proof” that his views were not politically motivated, but instead grounded in real facts.

In short, the Trump administration was using a propaganda technique to covertly plant credible seeds of doubt about a political opponent and the Russia investigation in anticipation of the 2020 election so he could capitalize on it.

The good news is that propaganda is neutralized by one thing: exposure.

The whistleblower who brought to light the machinations of the White House and its State Department enablers not only started the ball rolling on impeachment, but stopped a covert psychological operation against the American public dead in its tracks.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, triplehorn said:

Trump and Rudy's Ukraine scheme: it's worse than quid pro quo.  

The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act prohibits the U.S. government from using covert actions — which include propaganda — to “influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.”

 

 

That's a really good article explaining the WHY what Trump did is distinct and illegal.

1) The insistence Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and

2) the omission that it was done at the request by Trump

Edited by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

That's a really good article explaining the WHY what Trump did is distinct and illegal.

1) The insistence Ukraine publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens and

2) the omission that it was done at the request by Trump

It's an angle that needs more attention 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

An article of impeachment 

Seems they'd rather just throw obstruction on the impeachment pile rather than let him talk. 

And as we can see, their strategy is not working: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-say-they-endorse-opening-of-house-impeachment-inquiry-of-trump/2019/10/07/be9e0af6-e936-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

58-38 in favor of impeachment -- 49% in favor of impeachment and support removal

57% approval of impeachment from independents, including 49% who support removal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

I think the understanding is that congress has more powers under an impeachment investigation and SHOULD be able to compel testimony. But it will be up to the courts. 

Edited by SubliminalHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the play:

 

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this is the play:

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

The trouble with this is the amount of information that's already been exposed and individuals who aren't willing to comply with executive branch orders not to testify. 

It also puts the Senate in play next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Can an Administration refuse to have anyone testify? I understand that some questions can fall under exec privilege, but does every action or conversation within the Administration fall under that privilege? 
 

 

They're sure as hell going to try to block everyone. Acting totally innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what happens to someone that lives in say, Georgia or North Dakota, that ignores a subpoena? Whatever happens to them isn't that what should happen here? If this is about laws, and there are a lot of people who whine about elites (like Epstein) who are above the law, then showcasing this as an example would seem to be important. Does it not work that way at the federal level?

The more they stall, the more it makes it appear as if they are hiding something. They are, but it isn't me one would have to convince if the system needs changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that would be Jessie Liu? Doesn't she have a duty to prosecute? Her background is in litigation, investigation and compliance according to the website. Attorneys take an oath, too.

I get that politics is everything here, but I hate this game. And, the expense it costs to taxpayers to prosecute cannot be any worse than the delay we are experiencing now. I'm going to send her an email. If I get tossed in jail then it was nice to know you all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Congress has to start attacking these potential witnesses.  Issue a subpoena, and hold them in contempt when they refuse to testify.  At the very least that puts the onus on the DOJ to refuse to prosecute.

Sadly, they are in recess, so any contempt vote won't happen until next week at the earliest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this is the play:

 

They know he's getting impeached no matter what.  It's just WHAT they want him impeached for.  They can obstruct on everything and get impeached for obstruction or they can cooperate and have everything come out and it could be much worse politically.

The Senate doesn't convict and they cry witch hunt the entire time, hoping that enough people buy it and vote for him in 2020.

Rather than have everything exposed, keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

 

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The trouble with this is the amount of information that's already been exposed and individuals who aren't willing to comply with executive branch orders not to testify. 

It also puts the Senate in play next year.

Not with the simultaneous play of soliciting illegal election interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...