A FORMER US DOUBLE AGENT, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR re: Tulsky

[DURHAM D]

https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-being-used-russians-former-us-double-agent-evidence-clear-opinion-1466750


TULSI GABBARD IS BEING USED BY THE RUSSIANS, AND TO A FORMER US DOUBLE AGENT, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR | OPINION

In order to understand the Russians' goal, we must understand how they think. My understanding of Russian logic comes from the three years I worked undercover for the FBI, as well as from interactions I had with both the Russians and with FBI counterintelligence in the 20-year relationship that began after a Soviet intelligence officer walked into my parents' NYC office. That cumulative experience watching and dealing with Russia for decades brings me to this conclusion: Russian ideology seeks to harm the United States, and they will support anyone who can help them achieve that goal. This is not about pushing ideas that are pro-Russia— that is too small for them. They want to see a retreat of American influence. What better way to accomplish that than to attack our democracy by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our elections.

Russia's success in attacking our democracy is not tied to their ability to recruit Gabbard (or anyone else) to parrot Russian talking points. Rather, their success comes with their ability to influence and manipulate, through amplification, certain messages and candidates that create division. As we saw in 2016, Russia was able to aid Donald Trump by using tailored and manipulated social media campaigns, without even the knowledge or direction of the Trump campaign itself. After all, Russia's goal in 2016 was the delegitimization of our elections; they did not need to coordinate with Trump to make that happen. That's the disturbing parallel with Gabbard: Russia can seek to support her, without her knowledge.


If borne out, Russian support of Gabbard does not mean that she is a Russian-directed operative, or that she has ties with or is in contact with Moscow. As I learned during my operational time working against Russian intelligence, the targeting of U.S. persons for recruitment by a foreign intelligence service does not make that person guilty of a crime. The same holds true if Russia seeks to independently aid the Gabbard campaign. Russia may choose to covertly amplify her message by building what may look like organic and grass roots online support for her. They may take some of her talking points—such as, Assad "is not the enemy of the U.S." or that the U.S. is in "a new nuclear arms race"—and work to increase their reach across social media.

[redqueen]

1. Is "Tulsky" necessary? Really? nt

[thesquanderer]

7. especially since the entire point of the piece is the belief that she is being used unwittingly. nt

[redqueen]

10. I'm honestly shocked at the way this "issue" is being discussed.

Well played, Russia.

[thesquanderer]

12. I don't know... I don't think it's reflecting well on her either way. Do you? (n/t)

[redqueen]

13. Not at all, and she doesn't seem to care

Her initial reply was bad enough but then to go further and not disavow any such support?

I mean I guess I get it. She knows her campaign is on life support - she was probably trying to reframe it to be a fight between her and 'the establishment' and it seems to have sucked a fair number of people into thinking she deserves to have her campaign limp along for a little longer.

But I think she may have basically ended her political career with this, so ... Yeah, no real loss really.

[thesquanderer]

15. re: "Her initial reply was bad enough but then to go further..."

I actually think her initial reply was *worse* !!

Not that I was intending to vote for her anyway, but I'm not really bothered by the "not disavowing" thing. I can understand what is, in effect, "I say what I believe. If anyone anywhere happens to agree with me on some things, I can't control who they are or stop them from saying so." As I kind of said elsewhere, I always though the whole "disavow" thing is kind of ridiculous, even back when people were getting on Obama about Farrakhan. Having someone support you does not mean you support them or everything they say. It's meaningless except as a political football. It had no bearing on the policies he believed in, or how he would govern. He simply had to disavow it because, as the first black candidate, he couldn't afford to look the least bit radical to white america, even by the slightest association. So the distancing was understandable, but shouldn't have been necessary. I would have been perfectly happy with the same kind of "I say what I believe. If anyone anywhere happens to agree with me on some things, I can't control who they are or stop them from saying so." But yeah, people would have freaked. Unfortunately. As I've said when this has come up in other contexts, I just have a basic issue with guilt by association.

But TG's response to HRC was awful. The best slant I could possibly put on it is it's a play for the anti-Hillary vote, which is not insignificant. But while I think HRC was not showing proper respect to TG, TG in return sure wasn't showing proper respect to HRC. Both could have made their points far more diplomatically and fairly.

[redqueen]

18. Yeah I guess I just expected it

because it's so easy to do, and Yang was asked to do it re his support from some ppl in the alt right.

I agree her initial response was much worse, I just meant she did have a chance to try to help throw some water onto the fire so to speak, and instead she just added some more coal.

I think she's going for 'anti-establishment' and it seems to be getting traction on social media unfortunately. She's out for sure but now Bernie's decided to step in and try to take advantage. Seems like a terrible miscalculation imo.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. So anyone stirring the shit is helping the Russians. Who started this latest shit show?

[LanternWaste]

4. No one is making that argument. Except you.

"So anyone stirring the shit is helping the Russians."

No one is making that argument. Except you. But I get it... a lot of people need something to argue against; even when it exists nowhere but their own imaginations.

[redqueen]

5. And who's keeping it going.. far too many.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[W_HAMILTON]

8. Matt Taibbi?

Boy, the Russian assets are really circling the wagons on this one, ain't they?

[melman]

9. So did you have a problem with Beto's statement?

Link to tweet

[redqueen]

11. Him, Adam Parkhomenko, Bernie...

Seriously wtf

[OldRed2450]

17. Matt Taibbi?

Didn't he write some sort of rape essay?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

19. Yeah, just look at all the non stop threads- over a candidate polling at what? 2%?

[Piiolo]

3. Tulsky

[Liberty Belle]

6. His points are well taken.

I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard nor of Jill Stein.

But just because Russia used bots etc. to tout their candidacies doesn't mean they are Russian agents.

Russia's goal is to create disruption. Turning Dems against Dems, or progressives against Greens, suits that goal.

A moderate friend of mine who voted for Trump and now regrets it actually liked Tulsi due to her military service and at one point said he preferred her to the other Dems (but will likely vote for whoever the Dems put up, assuming Trump is still in the race).

It benefits Russia's tool, Trump, to knock out more conservative-moderate leaning Dems and to get Dems attacking each other. This can be done by posting "supportive" memes and then exposing that fact, thus turning voters against the candidate.

Tulsi has virtually no chance of winning the primary even without concerns about Russians. I think Hillary took a cheap shot since there is no proof that Tulsi is an actual Russian agent. It would have been accurate to say she's concerned about Russian's attempting to interfere with propaganda touting Tulsi Gabbard or tearing down other candidates.

Of course if there is actual evidence that Tulsi is an actual agent, that needs to come to light. But so far, she may be a victim in this. Other than having one staffer or campaign person a while back who had Russian ties, I've seen nothing to suggest she was a party to or supported Russian interference on her behalf.

That said, Tulsi's responses to Clinton were vicious and not presidential. Both of their remarks were out of line and over the top in my view.

I myself much prefer Elizabeth Warren -- someone who unabashedly supports healthcare for all and fighting against corruption in Washington, and remains calm under fire. But I won't be part of smearing other candidates, absent real evidence.

[IronLionZion]

14. Vox has a good explainer

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

The left-wing variant starts from the idea that America has evil intentions for the rest of the world — that it is, in fact, the largest threat to global stability on the planet. The right-wing version argues that the United States has no obligation to the rest of the world; that the US needs to put “America First,” even when it means ignoring suffering abroad.

These doctrines converge on the idea that the United States needs to stay out of foreign conflicts and even sometimes cross the line into outright apologia for bad actors abroad. This is how Assad and his Russian backers get painted as potential allies against jihadism rather than the human rights abusers they are, both by Gabbard and by Trumpists.

Gabbard’s embrace of anti-Clinton conspiracies and foreign autocrats shows how a strain of left-wing analysis, applied sophomorically, can lead to pretty ugly places. She’s a useful cautionary tale at a time when the left’s stock is rising on the Democratic side of the aisle.

[stopdiggin]

16. well stated. Both your post and the OP

offer a good deal more substance than some of the typical DU back and forth.

Yes, the Russians are more than happy to "use" TG (and any other instrument, or controversy, that is handy). And, no .. of course that doesn't mean that Gabbard is an "agent" or an "actor" for the state.
I found the following especially pertinent:

Vox --"Gabbard’s embrace of anti-Clinton conspiracies and foreign autocrats shows how a strain of left-wing analysis, applied sophomorically, can lead to pretty ugly places."

Just a "useful idiot" that's all
(and I hope her "usefulness" fades quickly .. and she fades away into obscurity.)