New CIA director Gina Haspel is a Deep-State plant
Trump just spent lots of political effort getting his pick to head the CIA--Gina Haspel--confirmed by the senate.
The liberal press voiced mild opposition, claiming Haspel had been in charge of CIA operations in Thailand that may have used "extreme interrogation techniques." But given the liberal press's constant bitching about such techniques (i.e. waterboarding) when Bush was president, this particular criticism of Haspel was strangely muted. It's almost as if the media wanted to be seen as watchdogs, yet not really press an issue that could prevent the senate from confirming her as director.
The most likely reason is that Haspel is a plant--a corrupt protege of Obama's utterly corrupt former CIA director John Brennan. She's a 30-year veteran of the CIA, and Brennan endorsed her for the directorship. Think about that: Would he have endorsed her without knowing she was a totally reliable ally who could be relied on not to root out corruption at the agency?
Obviously there was no down-side to Brennan saying nothing one way or the other about Haspel. If he was concerned that she might pose a threat to him (i.e. if he had any concerns that she might be honest), he would never have endorsed her.
With Trump's nominee facing what everyone expected to be a tough confirmation battle, his endorsement arguably helped her win confirmation. Would he have wanted a totally honest, independent director, who might well start cleaning out the corruption at the agency--and exposing Brennan's corruption in the process? Of course not. But he did endorse her for the top job. QED.
Another interesting coincidence: Crossfire Hurricane was the codename for Brennan and Comey’s operation in London. Strzok, Steele, Downer, Papadopoulos, Misfud, Halper, and Page meetings were all based in London. Guess who was the CIA's London Station Chief in 2016?
Gina Haspel. Meaning she had to have been aware of the operation. Yet went along with the illegality.
As I said: a totally corrupt actor. A plant.
My guess is that one of Trump's "advisors" suggested the president could score points with women voters by nominating the first woman as CIA director. Other presidential advisors would have assumed Haspel wasn't corrupt, because why would an honest advisor recommend a corrupt deep-state holdover for CIA director?
Ah yes, why indeed?
Keep in mind that all presidents are totally dependent on the accuracy of what their advisors tell them about suggested nominees. No president has first-hand information about a nominee, so if advisors propose a corrupt nominee, how can a president know the person is corrupt?
He can't, of course. I'm pretty sure that's what happened here.
But now, with Haspel confirmed, the only possible rescue is if some lower-level CIA employee decides he or she has had it with the corruption and decides to blow the whistle--and thus to sacrifice his or her career. And chances of that are damn near zero.
The liberal press voiced mild opposition, claiming Haspel had been in charge of CIA operations in Thailand that may have used "extreme interrogation techniques." But given the liberal press's constant bitching about such techniques (i.e. waterboarding) when Bush was president, this particular criticism of Haspel was strangely muted. It's almost as if the media wanted to be seen as watchdogs, yet not really press an issue that could prevent the senate from confirming her as director.
The most likely reason is that Haspel is a plant--a corrupt protege of Obama's utterly corrupt former CIA director John Brennan. She's a 30-year veteran of the CIA, and Brennan endorsed her for the directorship. Think about that: Would he have endorsed her without knowing she was a totally reliable ally who could be relied on not to root out corruption at the agency?
Obviously there was no down-side to Brennan saying nothing one way or the other about Haspel. If he was concerned that she might pose a threat to him (i.e. if he had any concerns that she might be honest), he would never have endorsed her.
With Trump's nominee facing what everyone expected to be a tough confirmation battle, his endorsement arguably helped her win confirmation. Would he have wanted a totally honest, independent director, who might well start cleaning out the corruption at the agency--and exposing Brennan's corruption in the process? Of course not. But he did endorse her for the top job. QED.
Another interesting coincidence: Crossfire Hurricane was the codename for Brennan and Comey’s operation in London. Strzok, Steele, Downer, Papadopoulos, Misfud, Halper, and Page meetings were all based in London. Guess who was the CIA's London Station Chief in 2016?
Gina Haspel. Meaning she had to have been aware of the operation. Yet went along with the illegality.
As I said: a totally corrupt actor. A plant.
My guess is that one of Trump's "advisors" suggested the president could score points with women voters by nominating the first woman as CIA director. Other presidential advisors would have assumed Haspel wasn't corrupt, because why would an honest advisor recommend a corrupt deep-state holdover for CIA director?
Ah yes, why indeed?
Keep in mind that all presidents are totally dependent on the accuracy of what their advisors tell them about suggested nominees. No president has first-hand information about a nominee, so if advisors propose a corrupt nominee, how can a president know the person is corrupt?
He can't, of course. I'm pretty sure that's what happened here.
But now, with Haspel confirmed, the only possible rescue is if some lower-level CIA employee decides he or she has had it with the corruption and decides to blow the whistle--and thus to sacrifice his or her career. And chances of that are damn near zero.
posted by SF at
8:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home