Obama Ordered Abuse of Intelligence: Sabotage Trump’s Seeking Better Russian Relation

anatta

100% recycled karma
In its last months the Obama administration ordered the intelligence agencies to collect and distribute information of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. This to prevent any change by the Trump administration of the hostile policy towards Russia that the Obama administration instituted. The intent was also gives the intelligence services blackmail material to prevent any changes in their undue, freewheeling independence.

The above is reported in a rather short New York Times piece published yesterday. The reporting angle captured in the headline is biased to set the Obama efforts into a positive light.
But the Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?_r=0

ut make no mistake. Not single shred of evidence has been provided that “Russia hacked the election” or had anything to do with various leaks of Clinton related emails. A lot of fluff and chaff was thrown around but not even one tiny bit of evidence.

The effort was clearly to sabotage the announced policy of the incoming administration of seeking better relations with Russia. Obama intended to undermine the will of the voters by abusing instruments of the state.

Excerpts from the piece:

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

It is completely normal for any campaign, and especially an incoming administration, to have contacts with foreign government officials.

Such contacts are needed to prepare policies and to get the facts right to plan and run a consistent foreign policy.
I am very sure that there were hundreds of talks between Trump campaign and incoming administration officials with Israeli, European and Arab officials. These are regular contacts and they do not violate any law.
There was and is no reasons at all to pick out talks with Russian officials as something sinister or even illegal.

Again – no evidence has been provided that Russia somehow interfered in U.S. elections. None at all. There was no sound reason to give special treatment to campaign contacts with Russia.

Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested the American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration.

Guess what – Trump is right. The “Russian hacking” story is not backed by any evidence at all. It IS cooked up. And to say Trump “accused” the Obama administration of attempts to “discredit his new administration” is quite weak. The article says exactly that. How else could one interpret the following section?

As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.

There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress. In one instance, the State Department sent a cache of documents marked “secret” to Senator Benjamin Cardin of Maryland days before the Jan. 20 inauguration.
 
The “intelligence community”, it is specifically the CIA here which campaigned on the Clinton side, manipulated the classification of secrets for the sole purpose of instigating witch-hunt investigations against the incoming Trump administration. Such secrets were then used to decapitate the Trump administration with the first casualty being his selected national security advisor Flynn. We currently see an attack on the administration’s attorney general Session for a routine talk with the Russian ambassador.
This based on “Justice department officials”, i.e. FBI flunkies. Why would they know who Session legitimately met in his function as U.S. Senator?

Slandered intelligence analysis was classified in low categories with the aim of distributing it far and wide and to practically guarantee that it would “leak” to the media. The real facts though were hidden as much as possible to provide no material for the Trump administration’s defense.

The opposite happened with the most sensitive intelligence, including the names of sources and the identities of foreigners who were regularly monitored. Officials tightened the already small number of people who could access that information. They knew the information could not be kept from the new president or his top advisers, but wanted to narrow the number of people who might see the information, officials said.

Everyone was to receive the slander “analysis” the intelligence services provided but no one was supposed to know the sources and the real facts. This would make sure that the anti-Russia and anti-Trump “analysis” would leak but not the weak bits of facts it is based upon.

To repeat: The Obama administration and the intelligence services spared no effort to sabotage the policies of the incoming Trump administration and prepared the grounds for baseless investigation against it. A lot of dirt is now thrown based on that effort and the hope is that some may stick.

The whole effort by the Obama administration started only after Trump was elected:

In early December, Mr. Obama ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of the Russian campaign.In the weeks before the assessment was released in January, the intelligence community combed through databases for an array of communications and other information — some of which was months old by then — and began producing reports that showed there were contacts during the campaign between Trump associates and Russian officials.

Again – there is nothing illegal with such contacts. These are routine and happen all the time. U.S. ambassadors all over the world routinely talk with local politicians in foreign countries. The Russian ambassadors do nothing different. This is known as diplomacy. There was no reason for the incoming administration to avoid such contacts with German, South African, Japanese or Russian officials or semi-officials. They intelligence community knows that there is no evidence that Russia interfered in the election. If it had any it would have long provided it. The ffort is specifically against the announced Russia policy.

Trump was election in part because he promised better relations with Russia. What the intelligence services do here is to undermine the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
As Joanne Leon opined:

Need to recognize this for what it is. The incumbent president used SkyNet to try to rig election and as blackmail tool on his successor

Building on the illegal moves of the Cheney administration Obama installed and empowered the intelligence instruments and the precedence for such manipulations. Not since the worst days of J. Edgar Hoover has the U.S. seen such an interior assault on politicians and policies.

Trump now hired some partisan Russia expert from the Clinton aligned Brookings to run Russia policy in the NSC. She will institute anti-Russian bias in his policies. This would not have happened under a national security advisor Flynn. For now the Obama assault on Trump’s announced policy has succeeded.
Those who voted for Trump for a change in Russia policies have been disenfranchised.

I do not prefer Trump policies. Flynn was a maniac and Session is a crazy fossil. But that does not justify this anti-democratic abuse of the foreign policy instruments of the state against the political opponents within the country.

Obama created these tools and now left them for the Trump administration to use. They will come back to haunt the Democrats. What will they say and do when the Trump administration will use these against them?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-...-seeking-better-relations-with-russia/5577863
 
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information
the low level analysis generated "reports" ,and the reports are leaked by the IC to the press
 
Spot on; let's keep bumping this up until the investigations have been completed. They will find that Trump was not the problem, but the Obama Administration.

;)
 
Spot on; let's keep bumping this up until the investigations have been completed. They will find that Trump was not the problem, but the Obama Administration.

;)
I heard some coverage for a day..they used the term "IC landmines" placed strategically to go off ( leak)
at opportune times.

Recall all this,and never any evidence of a "Russian connection" Obama abused the IC under the guise of "preservation" of Russian hacking - with the IC's leadership (Clapper at least) in full conspiratorial mode
 
The surveillance caught every word of the campaign's collusion with the Russians ...
Once there is a special prosecutor named, there will be someone o report it all to ...
Trump is fucked ... and he knows it...
 
So we're suppose to read and confirm that yada yada yada that you framed by piecing together from various right wing websites?

Notice you left out an important part of the NYT article you used to theme your partisan dissertation;

"American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence."

"Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."

If you are going to use the article as documentation you have to then also accept the other facts disclosed, none of which speak well for your argument
 
So we're suppose to read and confirm that yada yada yada that you framed by piecing together from various right wing websites?

Notice you left out an important part of the NYT article you used to theme your partisan dissertation;

"American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence."

"Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."

If you are going to use the article as documentation you have to then also accept the other facts disclosed, none of which speak well for your argument
"Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates."

what does that even mean? "Trump associates?" Does it show any campaign collusion? (no)

I covered the rest of the NYTimes,and linked to that article and you conveniebtly bypass the meat of the article:
this from the NYTimes
++
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government
++
i.e. widespread dissemination of low level data hyped up into reports,or archived because of Obama actors questions. which can be leaked, or given to Congress..
All used to undermine Trump himself and any possible "Russian reset" ( which only Obama gets? after his first term?)
 
They intelligence community knows that there is no evidence that Russia interfered in the election. If it had any it would have long provided it. The effort is specifically against the announced Russia policy.
IC Cold War-pigs
 
Hardly. if your buying into the rest of it, and using it as the center piece of your argument, you can't just blow off that the same sources indiicated that there was a very good reason for all the intelligence. You just bought into the conspiracy rhetoric, regurgitated it, without acknowledging the motivation behind any such actions
 
Conservatives crack one up with the "didn't interfere." Did the intelligence agencies find direct links that effected actually voting, no, there was no hacking of individual election booths or distracts tallies, but to say the Russians didn't influence the election would be to deny that Wikileaks or numerous fake news accounts had any impact on the election at all, which would be totally erroneous
 
Hardly. if your buying into the rest of it, and using it as the center piece of your argument, you can't just blow off that the same sources indiicated that there was a very good reason for all the intelligence. You just bought into the conspiracy rhetoric, regurgitated it, without acknowledging the motivation behind any such actions

Do you believe Trump colluded with Russia?
 
Do I believe it? Not at this point, but i do think that there is enough evidence out there to merit a full nonpartisan investigation

Why would Trump put out a shit storm of tweets at six o'clock Saturday morning if he didn't realize that his collusion with the Russians had been found out?
If he had just discovered he had been surveilled and he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he just go back to bed?
He knows the tapes are all out there ...
He knows he is fucked ...
 
Hardly. if your buying into the rest of it, and using it as the center piece of your argument, you can't just blow off that the same sources indiicated that there was a very good reason for all the intelligence. You just bought into the conspiracy rhetoric, regurgitated it, without acknowledging the motivation behind any such actions

what was the "very good reason" (your words) for preserving low level raw intelligence when there was no evidence of Russian collusion?
Not just preserving it,but questioning it, and disseminating it widely
across US and European intelligence agencies as reports?
 
Do I believe it? Not at this point, but i do think that there is enough evidence out there to merit a full nonpartisan investigation
there is no evidence no matter what you "believe". If there were any, would not it have been leaked by now?
Every other damn piece of innuendo is leaked -why not some actual evidence?
 
this is the crap the intelligence committee is using to investigate ,and others want a special prosecutor for
 
Back
Top