American Spies Paid $100,000 to Russian Who Wanted to Sell Material on Trump

They invented the "cyberweapons" angle to cover the story that they sought and paid for dirt on a presidential candidate (Trump) from a Russian source?

Because it's going to come out?

They really didn't want the stuff about Trump?

They were only interested in the hacking stuff, and the Russian instead gave them the information on Trump?

Just a theory, food for thought.

a reply to: ausername

They're not trying to buy them back. It's not like a scene from a movie where a guy hands over a thumb drive and the spy says, "And this is the only copy?" They're trying to figure out what else was stolen beyond what they already knew.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I understand that point now. I'm suggesting that the seeking intelligence on the cyberweapons information seems like an invented angle to cover that they we seeking dirt on Trump. The two seem too conveniently connected, and the news report suggesting that the spies made it clear they were not interested in the Trump stuff. But the Russian source instead provided it.

Just a theory.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now we know Steeles source for the golden shower story.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


You have to subscribe to the New York Times to see the article you linked to. I'm not a subscriber.

Use Firefox in their incognito mode. It will let you view. Phage gave me that top.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now we know Steeles source for the golden shower story.

I can’t tell anymore. One thing is for certain, he was working against, not for, the Trump admin. Either that or he was hoping American credulity would snag him a few bucks.

Well this part in the NYT story is interesting:

No audio could be heard on the video, and there was no way to verify if the man was Mr. Trump, as the Russian claimed. But the choice of venue for showing the clip heightened American suspicions of a Russian operation: The viewing took place at the Russian embassy in Berlin, the businessman said.

At the same time, there were questions about the Russian’s reliability. He had a history of money laundering and a laughably thin legitimate cover business — a nearly bankrupt company that sold portable grills for streetside sausage salesmen, according to British incorporation papers.

At the Russian embassy? That sounds doesn't sound good. On the other hand, it sounds so overtly suspicious that it doesn't sound like something a Russian op would do. Then again, maybe that's what they wanted the CIA/NSA to think.

I'm having a Vizzini moment now.

If this guy was not working at the behest of Russian intelligence services, he's probably going to turn up dead somewhere because his name is out in the ether and NYT article gives enough info to burn him.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My question is, how is it the NYT is even reporting this?!

Isn't this going against the narrative they're trying to peddle?

i has " material on trump " - a bargain at only $50k

and i can invent ........ooops sorry collect ore on demand

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't read the NYT article yet but I just finished reading one from James Risen at The Intercept. And it doesn't appear there is any involvement of the FBI or DOJ. It's the NSA and CIA.

The Intercept - U.S. Secretly Negotiated With Russians to Buy Stolen NSA Documents — and the Russians Offered Trump-Related Material, Too

It also doesn't sound like they wanted to touch the Trump-related material based on Risen's sources. Risen if you'll remember is the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist (his Pulitzer was for uncovering an NSA surveillance program) who was targeted by both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Are you saying the CIA & NSA don't communicate with the FBI?

Remember this? www.nytimes.com...

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.

Time for someone to dig into some emails and see what was flying about this time....

Was this about the time the Carter warrant would have been coming up for renewal? The one obtained in October---would have come up for renewal around the first of the year. Don't they have to be renewed every 90 days?

Hey, I guess Schiff isn't feeling so stooopid now that he realizes the NSA and CIA got punked by Russians or Germans or somebody to the tune of $100k. At least he didn't hand over any taxpayers' dollars.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well...my statement was intended to be more provocative than truthful.

originally posted by: ausername
They invented the "cyberweapons" angle to cover the story that they sought and paid for dirt on a presidential candidate (Trump) from a Russian source?

Because it's going to come out?

They really didn't want the stuff about Trump?

They were only interested in the hacking stuff, and the Russian instead gave them the information on Trump?

Just a theory, food for thought.

Right, my thinking also.
Why is this story just coming out now?

100k is laughable.

I remember when the hacking tools story came out.

It wasn't Russians either.

Back when the CIA Tools were being sold on the net.

Shadow Brokers and Equation Group

www.wired.co.uk...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I wouldn’t discount all journalists at any one news outlet, personally, but that’s just me.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah, this is a crazy story. I suspect there is a lot more to it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good story to keep an eye on for sure.

I always had a strange feeling when reading about this.

The analysis by James Bamford, a leading author and journalist in the US, said a "logical explanation" would put the incident at the hands of an insider. www.wired.co.uk...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Crazy story involving the CIA, the NSA, a sneaky Russian, Trump, et. al.

Some excerpts:

After months of secret negotiations, a shadowy Russian bilked American spies out of $100,000 last year, promising to deliver stolen National Security Agency cyberweapons in a deal that he insisted would also include compromising material on President Trump, according to American and European intelligence officials.

...

The N.S.A. even used its official Twitter account nearly a dozen times to send coded messages to the Russian.

The Russian claimed to have access to a staggering collection of secrets that included everything from the computer code for the cyberweapons stolen from the N.S.A. and C.I.A. to what he said was a video of Mr. Trump consorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room in 2013, according to American and European officials and the Russian, who agreed to be interviewed in Germany on the condition of anonymity. There remains no evidence that such a video exists.

...

Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian — who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. But instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.

American Spies Paid $100,000 to Russian Who Wanted to Sell Material on Trump

This is a story to keep your eye on.

LOL...wonder if we will see Rick Wilson pop back up associated....that would be quite the twist to have this come full circle.

Open a private mode tab and try again.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Did they pay the money? Did they get hacking tools? Did they get Trump info?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

They are reporting it in such a way to explain how the information was gotten and paid for in such a way so as to make it seem reasonable.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I wouldn’t discount all journalists at any one news outlet, personally, but that’s just me.

I don't doubt that there are respectable journalists with morals working at the NYT. It's the censorship and narrative-carving from above that dictates what's printed though.