Mike Morell, former CIA director admits to politicization of intelligence communty

The interview is difficult to read for the resolute unshakable bias of both interviewer and interviewee.

Susan Glasser writing for Politico opens with "The Russian 2016 hacking, Morell told me, was in fact a U.S. “intelligence failure” in multiple ways." That hacking was Russian phishing Podesta who stupidly opened his email and exposed DNC servers, where Russia turned over information to Wikipedia. She does not mention that, knowing her readers will conflate that known hacking that shows Democrat incompetence, with imaginary hacking of voting machines resulting in Hillary Clinton upset losing to  Donald Trump that has arrested the attention of Democrat media and whomever it is still watching them, the Democrat public at large.

Politico tucked this damaging interview away far to the bottom of their front page under the title Ex-Spy Chief: Russia’s Election Hacking Was An ‘Intelligence Failure’ 




Morell speaks like this, right. He says "right" at the end of every sentence, right. Not actually an interrogative, right. Rather a manner of seeking affirmation from his listener, right. So right there, when something is not wrong but right, or directionally right or politically right, or a triangle that's right then you end up with a lot of rights right next to each other, right. It's rightly irritating, right.

Through all of that the main thing is Mike Morell admits he came way out of character and the first time in his life publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, the known liar and crook and corrupter of government departments, over narcissistic Tump. Strange words to read given our eight years of Obama. Trump's narcissism is axiomatic and a startling unusual trait to see for the first time, for both virgin interviewer and interviewee.

Read it. It's painful. And hilarious. And enlightening. And distressing. This is our hopeless media. This is our intelligence agencies as a whole.

Glasser: Was that a mistake?

Morell: So, I don’t think it was a mistake. I think there were downsides to it that I didn’t think about at the time. I was concerned about what is the impact it would have on the agency, right? Very concerned about that, thought that through. But I don’t think I fully thought through the implications.

And one of the ways I’ve thought about that, Susan, is—okay, how did Donald Trump see this? Right? And from—it’s very important—one of the things we do as intelligence analysts is make sure that our guy—the president—understands the other guy. Right?

So, let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes. So, what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden, who I have the greatest respect for, criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, “Huh, what’s going on with these intelligence guys?” Right?

Glasser: It embroiders his narrative.

Morell: Exactly. And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.

And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, “What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?” The current director at the time, John Brennan, during the campaign occasionally would push back on things that Donald Trump had said.

So, when Trump talked about the Iran nuclear deal being the worst deal in the history of American diplomacy, and he was going to tear it up on the first day—John Brennan came out publicly and said, “That would be an act of folly.” So, he sees current sitting director pushing back on him. Right?

Then he becomes president, and he’s supposed to be getting a daily brief from the moment he becomes the president-elect. Right? And he doesn’t. And within a few days, there’s leaks about how he’s not taking his briefing. So, he must have thought—right?—that, “Who are these guys? Are these guys out to get me? Is this a political organization? Can I think about them as a political organization when I become president?”

So, I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political in that moment. So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.

Shorter Morell, "So to our shock Trump was elected president, right. And we were not prepared for that turn of events, right. Like we assumed we had this in the bag with Hillary, right. We were caught with our pants down to our ankles in sedition, right. Totally abusing the power inherent in our government position, right, to extend that power, right. And then as the ramifications of our errors played out, right, the full extent of our treason dawned on us, right.

Glasser sees Trump's narrative while her own narrative and the narrative propounded by all media and by intelligence agencies and departments is mere straightforward fact.

This is Mike Morell:

Daily Caller, same information with video of intelligence heads one after another all denying Russian meddling in U.S. election.