Semantisk løgn

Diverse — Drokles on May 24, 2018 at 6:39 am

Trumps modstandere i både efterretningsvæsenet og oppositionen og deres presse har travlt med at nedtone betydningen af at efterretningsvæsenet under den forrige præsident begyndte at spionere på sin politiske modstander. Som da tidligere FBI direktør Richard Comey, der blev fyret af Donald Trump (hvorefter han lækkede FBI notater til pressen med det formål at få åbnet en efterforskning af Trump) ændrede den juridiske ordlyd i sit resume af Hillary Clintons skødesløse håndtering af fortroligt materiale til et folkeligt udtryk, der derfor ikke krævede at blive handlet på. Og som han også, på daværende justitsminister Loretta Lynchs vegne, omtalte efterforskningen af Clinton, ikke som ‘an investigation’, men som ‘a matter’ - igen for at sløre at der var tale om regulære ulovligheder.

Nu hedder det fra pressen og efterretningsvæsenet at der ikke var tale om spionage, men blot indsamling af information begået af nogle i Trumps stab. At de indsamlede information uden at fortælle det og at det var deres primære formål med at være i eller tage kontakt til staben. At den ene lokkede den unge Papadopoulos til London med lovning om at han kunne få 3.000 dollars for lidt rådgivning om olieboringer er på ingen måde suspekt. Her fra New York Times udlægning

F.B.I. agents were seeking more details about what Mr. Papadopoulos knew about the hacked Democratic emails, and one month after their Russia investigation began, Mr. Papadopoulos received a curious message. The academic inquired about his interest in writing a research paper on a disputed gas field in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a subject of Mr. Papadopoulos’s expertise.

The informant offered a $3,000 honorarium for the paper and a paid trip to London, where the two could meet and discuss the research project.

“I understand that this is rather sudden but thought that given your expertise it might be of interest to you,” the informant wrote in a message to Mr. Papadopoulos, sent on Sept. 2, 2016.

Mr. Papadopoulos accepted the offer and arrived in London two weeks later, where he met for several days with the academic and one of his assistants, a young woman.

Over drinks and dinner one evening at a high-end London hotel, the F.B.I. informant raised the subject of the hacked Democratic National Committee emails that had spilled into public view earlier that summer, according to a person familiar with the conversation. The source noted how helpful they had been to the Trump campaign, and asked Mr. Papadopoulos whether he knew anything about Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Papadopoulos replied that he had no insight into the Russian campaign — despite being told months earlier that the Russians had dirt on Mrs. Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails. His response clearly annoyed the informant, who tried to press Mr. Papadopoulos about what he might know about the Russian effort, according to the person.

The assistant also raised the subject of Russia and the Clinton emails during a separate conversation over drinks with Mr. Papadopoulos, and again he denied he knew anything about Russian attempts to disrupt the election.

Det er det samme når man går på biblioteket. Og det bliver bedre endnu.

Informants take great risks when working for intelligence services, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, testified before Congress on Wednesday. Their identities must not be exposed, he said, hinting at congressional efforts to obtain the name of the source. “The day that we can’t protect human sources is the day the American people start becoming less safe.”

De samler bare informationer, men er i alvorlig fare, hvis de bliver taget i det. Vi har jo også alle øjne at se med så hvad er der særligt ved en vindueskigger? #OprejsningTilLurerAndersNu!

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress