Back in the U.S.S.R.

In the Sunday edition of TcPalm (Sept 18), guest columnist Fay Vincent weighs his voting choices:  “Like many voters, I am trying to find a reasonable basis for voting for either of the two major party candidates this fall.”

In due course, Vincent offers us this thought experiment:  

“Suppose Clinton — while holding an official government position — were to receive a document with no markings or other stamping to indicate it contains classified material. Yet the document contained the names of the top American secret agents or spies serving in Moscow. She would immediately know those names are classified. The law states that information is classified because the government official knows, or is expected to know, the dissemination of that data would harm the national security interests of this country.”

How can we be sure Clinton, or anyone, would know those names are classified?  Is this expectation realistic?  Is Vincent trying to be fair and open minded, or is he rigging his own thought experiment?  A Google search keeps this game in play.  Consider: 

The intelligence establishment is spread among 1,271 government agencies; an estimated 854,000 people have top-secret clearance. 

How can any Secretary of State reasonably know every Boris and Natasha inside this massive bureaucracy? The more practical approach is to rely on paper markings to determine the security status of any document.

Were national security interests actually harmed?  Here is the ‘gotcha’ question underlying Vincent’s argument. We should base decisions on facts, not suppositions without proof. Heated political rhetoric repeated often enough may convince some folks; I see a swing and a miss.

One of my closest personal friends is a former CIA field agent, now retired. Recently, I asked him about the DNC hacking case; of telltale fingerprints left by Russian hackers; of Russian efforts to influence public opinion in the West; and Russia's bankrolling of national front group in Europe.  Most of all, I asked about the Putin connection. Here is my friend’s reply via email (quoted with permission):

“Absolutely. It's hybrid warfare from an old Kremlin playbook with yet another twist.  What really disturbs me is my former friends of the right cozying up to Putin via Putin-funded Trump.  Exactly what you alluded to is terrifying to me. The Russians have disinformation honed to a science at all levels, troll-farms to work on Joe Six-Pack as he reads FaceBook, and the very sophisticated FSB/GRU types leaking timely emails. Russia is not a country ... it's a mafia disguised as a country. If Trump wins we're [expletive deleted].”

I have no reason to doubt my friend. What are the implications?  Two years ago, Russian troops without uniforms or insignia annexed Crimea. Periodically, Russian fighter jets harass American naval vessels in the region. Putin’s next goal is to destabilize Europe, undermine NATO, and dismantle the EU.  Yes, folks, the Cold War is back.

Which candidate has the requisite experience and skills to meet this challenge?  Madam Secretary, or the Reality TV guy with financial ties to Russia?  For me, the choice is clear.