Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Welcome! Log in to stay connected and make the most of your experience.

Input clean

Dead Drop: June 2

Dead Drop: June 2

JARED-GATE: Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell explained earlier this week in The Cipher Brief why we should not “Over Connect the Dots on Jared Kushner’s Russia Dealings.”  And just about every high visibility talking head has been asked to weigh in with the media on reports that First Son-in-Law, Jared Kushner suggested setting up a secret communications channel with the Russians during the presidential transition period.   We collected a few of the comments:

  • General Michael Hayden:  On CNN “…what manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or appropriate idea?”
  • John McLaughlin: On MSNBC: “the first reaction would be ‘is this a prank? …I can’t keep out of my mind that if an American intelligence officer had done anything like this, we’d consider it espionage.”
  • Former NCIS official Malcolm Nance: (Also on MSNBC) “This one incident requires Jared Kushner and all of his immediate staff to have their clearances pulled right now and to have the FBI descend on there and to determine whether this is hostile intelligence in the White House, one step from the president.”
  • Former Assistant DCI Mark Lowenthal in the Washington Post: “If you’re going to create a back channel that relies solely on the Russian communications and apparatus, that’s a really serious issue.”
  • Senator John McCain on CBS: "I know some administration officials are saying this is standard procedure," he said. "I don't think it's standard procedure prior to the inauguration of the president of the United States by someone who is not in an appointed position."
  • Former CIA and FBI official Phil Mudd on CNN: “We don’t know what he said and whether anything he said was either inappropriate or illegal,” and the “conversation about treason and espionage has to stop.”
  • National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster in a White House briefing: “We have back-channel communications with a number of countries. So, generally speaking, about back-channel communications, what that allows you to do is to communicate in a discreet manner.” adding “No, I would not be concerned about it.”
  • Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly on Fox News Sunday: “Any channel of communication back or otherwise is a good thing,” and  “It doesn’t bother me.”

IRAN-A-RISK: The folks at MuckRock.com continue to dig through the CIA’s recently made public, user-friendly CREST database searching for interesting stuff.  This week they turned up an October 1978 memo in which CIA Director Stansfield Turner reports on a conversation with national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in which Zbig asks about what’s all this opposition to the Shah of Iran?  The question may have come a little late – since the Shah was deposed less than four months later. In its response, the Agency was uncomplimentary of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, saying he presented no specific program but was “rich in pious generalities.”  CIA did nail it when talking about planned U.S. investment in Iran, saying such expenditures were “probably dead for the present.”

Keep reading...Show less
Access all of The Cipher Brief’s national security-focused expert insight by becoming a Cipher Brief Subscriber+ Member.