The Dumbest Headline Possible X 3

Yesterday CNN decided not to cover the Wikileaks dump of CIA Vault 7 documents. But they did run this.

Let me explain 3 different ways it's the dumbest headline possible, in light of not covering the CIA leaks.

1. On the day that we learned the CIA has a massive cyber arsenal that can eavesdrop on nearly any device, CNN reminds us (indirectly through the mouth of the Ukranian PM, of course) that we face a dire cyber threat from Russia. That is something like walking in the woods and being mauled by a mountain lion and having a CNN reporter stroll up and say, "Hey man be on the lookout for bears. They're really dangerous."
2. The CIA lost control of the tools. The reason this happened is because the CIA isn't authorized to use them the way they want. They aren't supposed to be spying domestically. So they hire contractors who then hire sub-contractors who sign contracts containing no illegal requirements, but which are passed over with a wink and a nudge. The CIA can't give those unvetted civilians classified cyber weapons, so they were simply declassified. Because they lost control of the tools, anyone could have them. Now you're walking in the woods but every squirrel, bluebird, and chipmunk is potentially as dangerous as a mountain lion.
3. The leaks also showed that the CIA keep a library of foreign malware for the purposes of disguising their operations as those of foreign actors, including Russian tools. The fact that Wikileaks just cast serious doubt that any evidence of Russian hacking was valid didn't deter CNN from going with the narrative of Russian cyber terror.

To be fair CNN did finally pick up the story. Here is their headline today.

They're toeing the establishment party line of "it doesn't matter what was leaked, only who leaked and how they should be punished." But at least it's an improvement over running the headline that was the dumbest possible headline for three different reasons.

Democrats Face a Pandora Dilemma

There are a couple ways the Democrats might respond to the recent wiretapping allegations. They might assess the situation based on a sober analysis of the facts and evidence available to them compliant with the standards of journalistic integrity. I jest, of course. They might also respond by doing everything in their powers to rebuke and ridicule the claims, effectively working to protect Obama from a serious public inquiry into the matter. If their standard pattern of behavior and initial reactions are any hint, they will pursue the route of legitimizing Obama's actions. But is that the wisest strategy for them?

Why Wiretap?

Note that these days the term wiretap is typically meant in the sense of a general interception of communications. Obviously a wireless phone is not literally wiretapped.

I showed in Mainstream Media Unsure How to Best Discredit Itself Over Wiretapping Situation that the Obama administration has a long history of wiretapping. Why would they do this? What benefits might be gained from intercepting the communications of a journalist or a political rival?

Danger warning

All politicians say they want honest and accurate journalism. But if some hypothetical entity was engaged in widespread unethical and illegal behaviors, they might become very concerned, even somewhat paranoid about journalists venturing too close to revealing their misdeeds. (Remember this is completely hypothetical). It is the priority of any shady politician to keep tabs on journalists and be forewarned of any impending scandals.

Competitive advantage

Intel always gives the recipient unfair competitive advantage. There are indications that information gleaned from surveillance made its way to the Clinton campaign. Such actions, if proven, would constitute a massive blow to the notion of a free election, and corroborate Trump's claim that it was rigged.

Political weaponry

Surveillance gives enormous leverage over the subject of interest. If the dubious observer just so happens to find evidence of criminal or embarrassing behavior, they can use that information to either blackmail or destroy their opponent.

Why Russia?

It seems that surveillance permission was granted to the Obama administration after their second application to the FISA courts. They did not make an attempt to get a surveillance order from a standard court. It would be nearly ludicrous to do so. To go on the record to ask for a warrant against the opposition party's candidate would be quite a scandal. But FISA warrants are issued in secret. That is the warrant you want if you're a shady politician trying to use surveillance as a weapon against an opponent. But the warrant is also very restricted in scope. Because it is effectively a violation of the 4th Amendment, the warrants are limited to foreign intelligence surveillance (the FIS in FISA) information necessary to protect the United States against "grave" "hostile" attack, war-like sabotage, or international terror. It's not enough for Obama to merely allege that Trump is generally a threat to the nation. There must be a concrete plot, either real or suspected, and of a foreign nature.

This is why we have the alleged Russian connection. If you've been baffled over their insistence on pushing this farsical inquisition, be baffled no longer. The Russian connection satisfied the need for the surveillance to be of a foreign nature. With that in place, surveillance was put on the Trump campaign in complete secrecy. This explains not only the pushing of the Russia conspiracy theory during the election, but why they are pressing hard on it still to this day. Once Trump was elected it became obvious that the surveillance would be exposed. They are desperate to keep the idea of Russian collusion planted in the minds of the public to have plausible deniability for using the state security apparatus against the political opposition, which is approximately the definition of tyranny.

The Dilemma

The situation facing the left is this. If they admit that the surveillance was improper then they pave the way for high-ranking former officials, and perhaps Obama himself, to be sent to prison. They almost certainly won't do this. They'll find every reason to deny or justify the surveillance. Obama probably won't go to jail. But then they've justified tyrannical behavior, and now Trump is president. The precedent will be made that to put surveillance on the political opposition, all one has to do is make vague accusations of collusion with a foreign entity and get a secret court order. So which is the better option for the left: Do they let their hero's legacy go down in flames? Or do they open the Pandora's box of legitimizing state tyranny under an administration they are quite certain is tyrannical?

The Russian Connection. If Only.....

Moscow Accused Trump of Lack of Professionalism

A Russian senator has labeled Trump as "unprofessional" in response to Trump's criticism of the Start-III and accusations of Russian violations of the INF Treaty.

In his interview with Reuters, Trump alleged that Russia deployed cruise missiles in violation of INF Treaty. Thus, the US president believed the rumors spread last week by the US media and Senator John McCain. The assertion that “ a combat-ready unit of cruise missiles” has been deployed turned out to groundless, as the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs previously pointed out to Washington.

Imagine you're Trump. You've heard from John McCain, the media, and the US intelligence community that Russia has violated a nuclear treaty. You meet with Putin, and question him on the issue. Putin responds that the allegations are false.

Who do you believe? McCain the war hawk who has done everything to sabotage Trump's legitimacy? The media who has lied about Trump more times than could possibly be counted? The intelligence community, which has been leaking like a sieve and even wiretapped candidate Trump? Or Putin, a Russian intelligence veteran who has had years to shake down his intelligence apparatus and has a tendency towards candor?

The left has gone absolutely batshit crazy over an alleged Russian connection. It's almost too bad there's not evidence to support it. I would hope that there has been such a channel so that Trump is getting information from sources other than those than have gone unhinged in their attempts to sabotage him. He is in a very tough position in which it is very difficult for him to know who can be trusted. The oligarchy is undergoing a massive allergic reaction in order to reject the intruder. This kind of massive internal sabotage is not something his business experience could have prepared him for. Trump's successes came from building businesses, not engaging in hostile takeovers. It is difficult for us to know just how prepared he is for the task he has brought upon himself. His best chance for a clear picture of how the US government really operates may come not from within the structure that has mastered the art of bending elected officials to its will, but from outside entities that have mastered the art of surveilling the inner workings of the US government.