Just as it was reported that the summit between the United States and North Korea was back on and that Kim Young Chol, the Vice Chairman of North Korea was on his way to New York to meet with officials in preparation for the June 12 summit, the CIA leaked an intelligence assessment concluding that “North Korea does not intend to give up its nuclear weapons any time soon.” The timing of this leak is striking, as it seems to be an effort to undermine negotiations between the two nations and comes just days after ranking members of the Democratic Party and Republican hardliners attacked President Donald Trump over his efforts to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
The identity of the reporter who helped break the story also raises serious questions about whether or not a faction within the CIA deliberately attempted to undermine diplomatic efforts to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. According to NBC News, the report was leaked to none other than NBC national security reporter Ken Dilanian, known as “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man.”
In 2014, The Intercept reported on Ken Dilanian’s correspondence and relationship with the CIA while Dilanian was a reporter for the Los Angeles Times.
According to The Intercept, “Email exchanges between CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, show that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication. In at least one instance, the CIA’s reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story that was eventually published in the Times.”
According to the Huffington Post, while writing for the Los Angeles Times, Dilanian also reported a CIA claim as fact by stating that “there was no collateral murder in a 2012 drone strike on Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi.” Dilanian’s article was directly disputed in an Amnesty International report.
In the aftermath of the revelations about Dilanian’s ties to the CIA, he was disavowed by the Los Angeles Times. The disclosure of Dilanian’s collaboration with the CIA also led his former employer, David Lauter of the Tribune Washington to believe Dilanian could have violated Tribune news policy. Lauter acknowledged that Tribune policy dictates that reporters “not share copies of stories outside the newsroom.” Lauter further stated that he was “disappointed that the emails indicate that Ken may have violated that rule.”
Dilanian has not shied away from pushing articles written by former CIA officials who continue to perpetuate the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative without any regard to facts, such as Steven Hall’s Washington Post article titled: “I was in the CIA. We wouldn’t trust a country whose leader did what Trump did.”
Perspective | I was in the CIA. We wouldn't trust a country whose leader did what Trump did. https://t.co/4XG8TmhwKq
— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) May 18, 2017
Wikileaks has also pointed out Dilanian’s agency connection and his pushing of the “Trump-Russia” collusion narrative, tweeting: “CIA’s ‘mop up man’ Ken Dilanian is the NBC ‘reporter’ used to channel claim about president Putin + US election.”
Seems they cant risk Trump being successful in negotiations, his approval numbers with over 90 % negative media is dangerous to their agenda.
Well, they’ve provided Trump with an excellent excuse if the talks fail, thank you very much. Apparently, the prospects of success are much greater than we realize if the deep state is trying to sabotage the talks. Kind of a revisitation of how much faith they had that Hillary would defeat Trump in the election.
Wait… wait… let me guess. They are just trying to help and protect Trump. Yeah, that’s it.
Anyone who isn’t a complete idiot already realized North Korea isn’t going to give up its nuclear weapons anytime soon, because:
(1) Kim Jong-un believes retaining his power—and his life—depend on his nuclear capability; and
(2) You don’t spend decades of time and billions of North Korean won struggling to acquire something, just to throw it away.
Stating the obvious is not an intelligence leak.
@Greg: So, why would the CIA leak such an assessment? Apparently some there are a little less confident in failure than you.
Since you think Un entered these negotiations in totally bad faith, you must know how he is going to come out with his nuclear weapons without appearing to be the dishonorable and belligerent liar? Trump has browbeat Un to request these talks and now very cleverly and wisely avoids every chance to give him an excuse to back out. Un is boxed into a corner and unless he agrees to denuclearize and be peaceful, he is in serious trouble.
Whatever the results, you whiny liberals cannot face the fact that Trump has accomplished what elitist politicians never could. However, we know there can be no possible leaks of intelligence from the left. Impossible.
@Deplorable Me, #4:
Compared with whom?
He’ll go through the motions, but he won’t surrender his nuclear capability. The reason he’s more open to talk now is because he’s already achieved that. Possessing nuclear weapons strengthens his position in any negotiation. You don’t bargain away your single most important bargaining chip. (Isn’t that point made in Trump’s book somewhere? I don’t see how he could have left it out.)
@kitt: What is your definition of success—do you believe it can be achieved?
i’d personally love to see these two self absorbed charlatans sit across from each other—don’t think it will happen and don’t think DT will sit with Mueller.
Would like to see DT fire Rosenstein and Mueller–think that probably will happen’
What say you—it’s Thursday–got anything?
@Greg: Nice evasion of the question, but I couldn’t help but notice you did everything you could NOT to answer it.
N.Korea ASKED for the talks and the known and repeatedly acknowledged goal of the talks was the denucleariztion of N.Korea. So, other than that, what would be the point of the talks? Trump has given N.Korea NO REASON to back out and when he himself called them off, N.Korea pleaded for them to continue. I have no delusions about Un’s duplicity, but I’ll leave it to you to explain how he is going to walk away from the talks HE wanted and HE kept on schedule?
Trump has boxed Un in a corner. What happens happens, but if Un backs away from his demonstrated and exhibited willingness to denuclearize, HE will be the villain and greater and more oppressive sanctions will be coming his way.
Republicans hope for success and peace while liberals cheer for failure and war. That pretty much explains it all.
@Deplorable Me, #7:
And you believed going through the motions suggested their possible acceptance of that goal?
The CIA “leak” is an invitation to perform a badly needed reality check. Talking with these people is good, but the fact that they are willing to talk shouldn’t become a basis for delusional thinking.
Maybe the right needs an analogy they can relate to: Kim Jong-un is convinced people are out to get him. He’s not going to give up the handgun that he keeps under his pillow.
No, I believe a lot of people in the world have hopes that peace may be at hand, particularly since N.Korea has already indicated they are open to all the demands. I know this doesn’t include the whiny part of the world, but a lot of people would prefer a peaceful Korean peninsula to Un threatening the world with nuclear weapons on a whim.
Once again I will try to get an answer to a simple question: since N.Korea initiated the talks and has presented themselves as open to all the questions on the table, and since Trump is not offering them any opportunity to back out, and since when N.Korea started acting in a belligerent manner and Trump said “forget about it” and N.Korea came back declaring their desire to come to the table, HOW IS N.KOREA GOING TO GET EVERYONE TO THE TABLE AND THEN REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE REASON THEY ARE AT THE TABLE?
Don’t do the AJ/Rich thing and think you can run away from questions that undercut your arguments. That’s cowardice.
You should try to go the adult route and wait until Trump actually fails to criticize him as a failure. Cheering for failure and supporting the opposition is decidedly anti-American. The CIA leak is treason and it was committed by liberals who cannot stand the thought of Trump not acting like you liberals have characterized him. Liberals cannot admit error, something you would think would come easily to them with so much practice.
@Deplorable Me: AL/Rich thing??
I’ve answered all questions—you don’t read them as evidenced by your continual assertion that Clifton Roberts is an attorney for animal rights when I’ve assured you many times he is not an attorney for the animals he is CEO of The Humane Party which advocates for all sentient beings human and non human and for a sustainable environment–he has a B.A. IN COMMUNICATIONS DESIGN FROM BERKELEY that’s it–If you can’t get something that SIMPLE correct why should I bother with you at all?
@Deplorable Me, #9:
The question is ridiculous. Agreeing to “come to the table” obligates North Korea to nothing whatsoever.
How could they refuse? They could simply stand up and walk out, on any pretext that happens to be convenient at the moment. If they’re agreeing to talk, it’s because doing so serves their current interests. It could be a PR move or a delaying tactic. The history of diplomacy is full of insincere negotiations.
Ask yourself this: What could Trump offer Kim Jong-un in return for giving up his nuclear weapons that a dictator in his position would find both acceptable and believable? If there’s no good answer to that question, we can assume that nukes are the bargaining chip that Kim won’t surrender.
It might be possible to reduce tensions with an emergent nuclear state in mutually beneficial ways. That’s what could make the exercise worthwhile.
@Greg:
Still dodging.
He’s already done it. He offers N.Korea the commitment to never pre-emptively attack N.Korea and to come to N.Korea’s aid if they are attacked. Since this is what N.Korea says they have their nuclear weapons for, what is their response?
You know, if N.Korea is not going to give up their nuclear weapons, they could show that by NOT going to a meeting THEY called to discuss giving up their nuclear weapons.
See, that’ how you answer a question. You just do it.
Ask yourself this: What could Trump offer Kim Jong-un in return for giving up his nuclear weapons that a dictator in his position would find both acceptable and believable? If there’s no good answer to that question, we can assume that nukes are the bargaining chip that Kim won’t surrender.
@Nathan Blue: As I explained to Greg, Trump has offered a US promise that we would never launch an unprovoked attack on N. Korea and would protect them if anyone else did. Now, is that brilliance or what? Because, we of course have no intention of attacking N. Korea without provocation, never have, and as long as N.Korea doesn’t attack them, neither does any other nation, nukes or not. That was simply N.Korea’s excuse for developing nukes.
Trump’s biggest problem is overcoming the legacy of weakness and stupidity Obama leaves behind. True, Bolton probably should not have used Libya as an example of a country that gives up its nukes for that could be misinterpreted. What Bolton referred to was the general peace and cooperation Libya enjoyed after they gave up their WMD’s, but what N.Korea interpreted was the part where Obama unleashed the Muslim Brotherhood on them and then he and Hillary destabilized Libya, which resulted in Qaddafi’s death. Also, if the N.Koreans expect the US to pay them for the honor of us accepting their terms, as Obama did with Iran, the talks could be stretched out unnecessarily or even doomed.
Libya showed the value of the US negotiating from a position of power. Though Obama tore that down, it remains to be seen which version of the US Un thinks he is negotiating with now. Hopefully we don’t have to SHOW him.
North Korea views the United States as their most likely potential attacker. We’re the focus of nearly 70 years of institutionalized national paranoia.
“We promise we won’t attack you, despite the fact that you represent everything we actively oppose. Just give us your gun, and we’ll work something out.”
He’s going to go for that? I don’t think so. We might hope to work out a better relationship, but I don’t think it will include Kim Jong-un handing over his gun. I think he knows the Trump administration would take him out in the blink of an eye, if they calculated they could conveniently do so. His nuclear capability makes such a move enormously inconvenient.
@Richard Wheeler: #6 Sorry for late response, I would like to see them stop sharing nuclear technology and delivery systems with Iran to begin with. A real peace treaty with South Korea? (if the 9th circuit court doesnt block it 😉 ) I really dont have high hopes but perhaps slow methodical progress might help the people of NK.
The old tried and failed heres a boatload of cash now behave hasnt worked.
@Greg:
Um… not since THEY attacked S. Korea. No doubt they hate us because without our involvement, there would be no S. Korea, but we have not threatened them without provocation since. In fact, we have reacted very calmly to many N. Korean aggressions against the south. Their “fear” of the US is merely propaganda to keep their people in a constant case of anxiety, fear and defense (sort of like what the Democrats do in regards to health care, immigration and gun control) and easily manageable when they have to suffer shortages and privations.
Hey, that sounds a lot like the left’s argument in favor of gun control. However, unlike the left, the US has no history of abrogating treaties, except in the round about way Obama and Hillary screwed Qaddafi and Libya over after they had surrendered their WMD’s and cooperated with us in our fight against terrorism. THAT stigma has to be overcome and I would not be so bold as to say it will be easy, but it is in N. Korea’s interests to make the deal. It should be in the form of a treaty (not an unsigned deal with a pallet of cash).
WHY would Trump do that? Then HE would be the global pariah, as Un will be if he comes to the table and refuses the one, basic premise for COMING to the table. Trump would have no reason to think he could gain any advantage by destroying N. Korea, particularly after they have ceased to be a nuclear threat. Besides, they still have China as an ally. Stop trying to make Trump into the caricature you liberals have created. You can’t argue intelligently from that position.
@Deplorable Me, #17:
The comment referred to their perception of the threat situation, not ours. It’s their perception that convinced them they need to sleep with a gun under their pillow.
North Korean culture has been saturated for nearly 70 years with propaganda like this. They actually believe this stuff. Their world view isn’t based on American history books or American popular culture. Their access to opposing views is extremely limited.
@Greg: The LEADERS don’t believe it and that is who will be at the table. In the end, just as our own media does with you people, the N.Korean state-run media has the power to tell the people ANYTHING to justify the actions of the government.
Kim Jong-un also perceives the United States as an existential threat. Why do you think they’ve been so determined to acquire nuclear weapons? Do you think Trump is the sort of leader who will put their minds at ease?
@Greg: You think so? You think Un believes he is going to win a nuclear exchange with the United States or does he just want the prestige of being a nuclear power that can blackmail other countries?
Trump is showing Un the time to put up or shut up is nigh. So, Un has to figure something out, but he is mistaken if he thinks going to the talks then acting surprised that his nuclear weapons come up in the discussion is going to be a way out.
Regardless, Trump is doing an admirable job thus far in bringing about these negotiations. It is really shameful you liberals are not mature enough to admit at least that much. But that erodes your whole caricature of Trump you have convinced yourselves represents him. You have only fooled yourselves.
@Greg: Actually the biggest threat to the US right now is you and all of those who act like you. ( I can not credit all of you with thinking.) The CIA leaker is a traitor and a Comey like person. You are spouting stupid stuff since you can not read minds. You have no facts and no means of knowing the truth of what you say. Sarah Sanders is right when asked what Trump had to say about Kerry, Obama and Clapper comments. “Why should we listen to them or anyone who have failed?”
@Randy: Someone within the CIA assumes failure or wants to assure it. Whatever the chances of success, working to assure failure is treason. How typically liberal for Greg to try and justify it with the excuse that it is a “reality check”. The reality is that whatever can be done to stop the N. Korean nuclear threat has to be done. Assuming failure is such a liberal thing to do.
@Deplorable Me: I see that the Democrats are trying to usurp the responsibilities of the administrative branch on the NK negotiations. Wonder where they were when Obama was president. They gave him free reign with his actions. If the DOJ was not so corrupt, they should be looking to find out who the CIA agent who leaked the NK info to the media.
Nobody “wins” a nuclear exchange. Everybody loses. The consequences are acceptable only to people who lack any realistic understanding of what the consequences would be. Those who understand them and still find them acceptable are f-cking lunatics.
@Greg: Maybe you and your buddies need to stop guessing and wait to see what happens. All of you have been wrong on Trumps achievements so far. I would think you would be at least a little embarrassed with how wrong you have been. I guess that people like you thrive on showing your ignorance!
@Greg:
Ohhh… so that’s why we built them, I guess? You DO understand negotiating from a position of power, don’t you? Oh, wait… you voted for Obama. You DON’T understand.
OK, so I’ll explain it. To stop N. Korea from threatening everyone in the region with their nuclear weapons, we convince them we WILL utterly and totally destroy them if they use their weapons… ever… against ANYONE.
Now, in negotiations, the person negotiating from the position of such power does not follow that up by saying, “But, we would never do such a thing, because it would hurt you.”
Kind of get it… a little? See, threatening them to bury them under pallets of cash is not very scary, but threatening them, convincingly, with vaporization gets their attention. Shortly thereafter, we see them across the negotiating table.
@Randy:
The left can’t afford to do that. It is quite possible Trump will be successful and that would be devastating to the left. Like Hitler could not take power in Germany until the Depression made their argument appear to offer better opportunities than those at hand, as long as Trump succeeds, what the liberals have to offer (more and more Obama-style failures). This is why they can only hope and cheer for US failure because that is the only way what they offer looks attractive.
Oh, Randy. Haven’t you heard? They were never wrong… the RUSSIANS twisted everything up, misogyny and capitalism overwhelmed all the goodness and love Hillary was offering and they wuz robbed.
@Deplorable Me, #27:
Have you looked at a map? We could not destroy North Korea with nuclear weapons without bringing total ruin on South Korea and Japan, and would most likely find ourselves at war with China, which probably has 90 ICBMs packing MIRV warheads, as well as missile-equipped submarines. U.S. survivors wouldn’t find the knowledge that North Korea had been utterly defeated of much consolation.
@Greg: Yeah, I’ve seen a map. It would not take more than a few small yield weapons to erase N.Korea. Now, if you can show me where I ever indicated this would not affect S. Korea, I would be interested to see it. However, if N.Korea launched an ICBM at Guam or our west coast, what do you think an appropriate response would be? Pallets of cash? An apology? Or taking the danger OUT?
I’m pretty sure we can hit N. Korea and miss Japan entirely.
China would suffer greatly, which is why Trump has gotten their cooperation. Also, China has told N. Korea that they would not defend them in the event they launched an unprovoked attack. If China retaliated, what do you suppose they would expect as a response? So, check that.
But, the key is to make all that unnecessary, which is what Trump is doing. Meanwhile, you liberals and rogue elements in the CIA are doing everything you can to keep the threat real and hot. Why?
North Korea is thought to have at least 16 nuclear weapons. Some place the estimate as high as 60. Their first successful test was 12 years ago.
Because the threat of miscalculation is entirely real, and we have reason to believe Donald Trump may have more loose screws than a Studebaker.
@Greg: Studebakers were very well built and sound automobiles. The very fact that Trump has maneuvered Un into a position where he has to find a diplomatic path out of his corner should be enough to cast doubts upon the childish characterizations of Trump’s negotiating skills you liberals entertain yourselves with. You think because he doesn’t act like the leader of the most power nation in the world that is afraid of every despotic aggressor he is somehow unhinged. No, only Obama was a coward in the face of lesser powers. Trump WIELDS the power he has to create a pathway to peace.
Until N. Korea has a reliable and accurate means of delivery, their nukes are nothing more than a terrorist threat. They never developed that and Trump has stopped the progress of that development.
Still, there is no excuse an American can have for wishing for Trump’s failure, releasing information that impedes to path to peace, or cheering on those who intentionally and maliciously conducts such treason.
Oh, look. The Democrats just woke up.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/north-korea-summit-democrats-list-demands/
How astute of them to restate the points Trump has been making all along so we can know they understand who we are dealing with and what is actually happening. However, I’m sure Trump could send them a letter right back saying, “Go the f**k back to screaming at the sky, sit down and shut up. I’ve seen you guys “negotiate”. I got this, idiots.”
Democrats would stand no more of a chance of striking a deal with North Korea that meets all of these requirements than Trump does. We might get something of benefit—which we should all hope for—but it will fall short of all of this.
Setting up an all-or-nothing expectation and attitude serves the best interests of nobody.
@Greg: You attitude is exactly what Obama and others had that got us where we are now. Looks like you want to continue that losing philosophy. The real change is coming because many North Koreans saw how the rest of the World lived during the Olympics. No one can put the genie back in the bottle after that without major changes. Trump is much smarter than you are Greg. Well, most people are smarter than you..
Did you check to see what meeting “all of these requirements” would consist of?
@Greg:
Did you see what your beloved Democrats are saying? Unless ALL of those “demands” are met, no treaty will be ratified by them. NOW they want to grow some balls and stand up for something, even if it serves only to derail any deal Trump can make.
@Greg: Another example of your Democrat-run, propaganda media only concerned with power, not people.
The Party of Jim Crow should not even bother fielding a Presidential candidate in 2020 and just save the money. Could buy some more journalists.
Trump’s already won his second term.
You might be right.
All it took to organize them was matching hats.
@Greg: If it takes “stupid people” to get despots to come to the table and give up their aggressive ways, then give me the “stupid people” for they are far preferable over the “brilliant people” he make deals with supporters of terrorism who want nuclear weapons, giving them all the concessions up front, even lying about how much they gave away, and come away with a great big bag of nothing.