The NYTimes is out with another Trump Russia smear, with writer @DraperRobert making a wild claim:
The Intel Community has a source that is “100 percent reliable” who says Russia wants Trump to win.
Folks, that source doesn’t exist.
Here’s why. (Thread)
The Intel Community has a source that is “100 percent reliable” who says Russia wants Trump to win.
Folks, that source doesn’t exist.
Here’s why. (Thread)
In the world of human intelligence, no source is ever “100% reliable.”
Sources go bad. For lots of reasons.
They lose their job, but don’t want to admit it.
They become double agents.
They unknowingly share information created by a hostile service. (Aka disinformation)
Sources go bad. For lots of reasons.
They lose their job, but don’t want to admit it.
They become double agents.
They unknowingly share information created by a hostile service. (Aka disinformation)
The most that an intel officer will say in describing their source is an assessment of their a track record **up to a given point in time.**
That includes a history of what vetting has been done on the source AND their info.
Even then, there’s never 100% certainty. Ever.
That includes a history of what vetting has been done on the source AND their info.
Even then, there’s never 100% certainty. Ever.
Unfortunately, there are bad intel officers who say dumb things like “100% reliable.”
The most common reason: an officer falls in love w/ their source.
Not romantically (though that has happened).
Instead, an officer or their HQS element likes a source / the intel too much...
The most common reason: an officer falls in love w/ their source.
Not romantically (though that has happened).
Instead, an officer or their HQS element likes a source / the intel too much...
... They fall in love with the accolades they get from their bosses, the White House, or Congress.
Their career gets defined by the success of that source.
Officers then lose objectivity. Stop vetting. Take revenge on doubters.
Alarm bells get missed.
Bad things happen.
Their career gets defined by the success of that source.
Officers then lose objectivity. Stop vetting. Take revenge on doubters.
Alarm bells get missed.
Bad things happen.
The most famous example:
CIA Director George Tenet & Agency officers believed our Iraq intel was a “slam dunk” proving Saddam had WMD.
We started a war with that certainty.
Turns out Tenet was wrong.
The sources of the intel — viewed as “100% reliable!” — were wrong.
CIA Director George Tenet & Agency officers believed our Iraq intel was a “slam dunk” proving Saddam had WMD.
We started a war with that certainty.
Turns out Tenet was wrong.
The sources of the intel — viewed as “100% reliable!” — were wrong.
It’s not just human sources that can go bad or be wrong, btw.
Non human sources — electronic snooping — can suffer the same fate too.
Non human sources — electronic snooping — can suffer the same fate too.
For example:
When an adversary knows you’re listening to their phone calls / reading their emails / flying satellites over their facilities, surveilled personnel may speak false info during phone calls or type up erroneous facts in emails.
All to confuse or misdirect.
When an adversary knows you’re listening to their phone calls / reading their emails / flying satellites over their facilities, surveilled personnel may speak false info during phone calls or type up erroneous facts in emails.
All to confuse or misdirect.
A great historical example:
The Allied Ghost Army of WWII, made up of inflatable tanks and artillery pieces.
The goal was to fool Hitler into thinking the Allied military was bigger and more powerful than it actually was.
And it worked. theatlantic.com/technology/arc…
The Allied Ghost Army of WWII, made up of inflatable tanks and artillery pieces.
The goal was to fool Hitler into thinking the Allied military was bigger and more powerful than it actually was.
And it worked. theatlantic.com/technology/arc…
The hustlers of the Trump Russia story know all of this, of course.
But they don’t care.
So they leverage NeverTrump intel officers like @GenMhayden & @MichaelJMorell to bolster the Trump Russia smear.
That’s how we get “100% reliable” quotes.
It’s part of the charade.
But they don’t care.
So they leverage NeverTrump intel officers like @GenMhayden & @MichaelJMorell to bolster the Trump Russia smear.
That’s how we get “100% reliable” quotes.
It’s part of the charade.
Bottom line:
Resistance Media outlets like The NY Times are not reporting news.
They’re feeding us propaganda, using partisan spies and intel lies, with the express goal of defeating President Trump.
If you think that’s wrong — as I do — do your part in November.
Vote Trump.
Resistance Media outlets like The NY Times are not reporting news.
They’re feeding us propaganda, using partisan spies and intel lies, with the express goal of defeating President Trump.
If you think that’s wrong — as I do — do your part in November.
Vote Trump.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
