Nunes notat er et lys i mørket

Diverse — Drokles on February 7, 2018 at 11:11 pm

De kloge strides om Nunes notatet, der beskriver hvorledes efterretningsrådets formand Nunes fortolker de oplysninger rådet har fået fra efterretningsvæsenet. Alt der kommer fra en politiker er et partsindlæg, hvad der for nogle forhåndsdiskvalificerer det, men som i realiteten blot er et forbehold, som det skal læses med. Og der har været kritik af at informationerne mangler sammenhæng og at der er meningsforstyrrende udeladelser.

Men tilbage står, at FBI under den tidligere Administration i et eller andet omfang har brugt eller måske forladt sig på, en dubiøs politisk efterretningsrapport, Steele rapporten med tisse-legene, bestilt og betalt af daværende præsidentkandidat Hillary Clintons kampagne, til at opnå ret til at overvåge en medarbejder i daværende præsidentkandidat Trumps kampagne, Carter Page - og således opnået mulighed for også at overvåge dele af Trump og hans kampagne by proxy. Victor Davis Hanson skrev

He was apparently known to intelligence agencies for years (supposedly under investigation variously by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), and he may have been the object of a 2014 FISA warrant. But such intelligence agents were never able to bring charges against him, and it appears he even cooperated with American intelligence in gathering info against the Russians. So why would the FBI and DOJ, suddenly in 2016, believe that mention of Page’s name in an unverified opposition-research dossier warranted four FISA warrants to find wrongdoing?

After all, if he was so well known to the FBI for so many years, during which they never charged him with being a Russian agent, and if the FBI nonetheless still regarded him as suspicious in 2016, why not simply go to a regular court to obtain a warrant to wiretap him? Such a court, of course, would be less secretive, not known for a 99 percent approval rate, subject to far more deliberation, and less useful for surveilling Trump associates.

A more likely supposition is that it was not Page’s past flirtations with the Russians (who supposedly dubbed him an “idiot”) that abruptly brought him back into the sights of the DOJ and FBI in 2016. Instead, it was his brief and minor relationship with Trump, and his appearance in a bogus dossier, that offered useful pretexts for court-ordered surveillance sweeps and indirect targeting of possible Trump associates.

Page was simply a tool, to be surveilled in hopes of also sweeping up other names and information that might corroborate some shred of the dubious Steele dossier. In that narrow sense, his name might as well have been Jones or Smith.

So far, all Carter Page has been found guilty of is momentarily working for the Trump campaign. His likely future lawsuits against Steele, Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign, the FBI, and the DOJ will probably follow a number of avenues.

Og Hanson minder om at “Shortly before leaving office, Obama abruptly issued yet another expansion of the Reagan-era Executive Order 12333, dramatically enlarging some 17 government agencies’ legal authority to surveille U.S. citizens — an order that had followed even earlier expansions of the number of officials privy to surveilled information.” Så Hanson citerer tidligere Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas, som hun fortalte MSNBCs Morning Joe om hvorledes den tidligere Administration ville samle så meget information om Trump og Rusland og sprede det, førend Trumps Administration fandt ud af, hvilke metoder man havde brugt

I was urging my former colleagues and — and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed — aimed at telling the Hill people, “Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.” Because, I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.

(nyd en analyse af Farkas kropssprog, da en journalist ville høre mere om denne samling af information på Trump) Derfor er Nunes smart når han offentliggør sit notat, om det er partisk eller ej. Demokraterne, pressen og FBIs eneste svar er nu at levere den sammenhæng, som republikanerne så vil yderligere nuancere og således eksponeres hele ‘deep state’s’ arbejdsgang, eller rettere Sumpens essens, for en måbende offentlighed. For der er selvfølgelig ikke tale om et samlet FBI endsige en samlet efterretningstjeneste, men centralt placerede rådne æbler, som søger at underløbe demokratiet.

Disse rådne æbler har dog fået lov til at rådne i en politisk kultur, som den tidligere Administration har dyrket, hvor embedsstanden er brugt foruroligende politisk. Fra at give miljøstyrrelsen EPA ukonstitutionel magt til at lade skattemyndighederne forfølge konservative organisationer særligt nidkært. Det er klart i et sådant miljø, at ansatte med stærke holdninger, som agent Peter Strzok, der sms’ede i et væk med sin kollega om et hemmeligt netværk og en nødplan skulle Trump blive præsident, og den af Trump fyrede tidligere FBI direktør James Comey.

Comey mente at offentliggørelsen af Nunes notat både var uden betydning, “Dishonest and misleading”, som det var OG at det ville være skadeligt for USAs sikkerhed. Sikkert mest skadeligt for ham dog, mente den tidligere FBI agent Jim Kallstrom, der pegede på Comeys rolle, ikke blot som lækker af notater, men også som aktiv politisk agent. Det var Comey, der efter aftale med den tidligere Justitsminister ikke blot ændrede formuleringerne i sin rapport over Hillary Clintons ulovligheder, så de ikke fremstod i juridiske termer, men også og på den baggrund anbefalede ikke at foretage sig yderligere, stik mod hans kompetence og stik mod lovens ord og bogstav.

Presset mod Trump næres af alt gedulgt, kun ved at pege mod truslen fra mørket kan man skræmme befolkningen. Og så nytter det jo ikke at nogen har den frækhed at tænde lyset, så amerikanerne kan få syn for sagn.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress