They’re doing to Elon Musk in 2024 what they did to Mike Flynn in 2017. Now as then, it’s a direct challenge to the rule of law and to democratic procedure. And yes, Donald Trump, too, is a target, albeit indirectly.
On October 24, the Wall Street Journal headlined, “Exclusive: Elon Musk’s Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin: Regular contacts between world’s richest man and America’s chief antagonist raise security concerns.”
The article detailed alleged conversations between Musk and Putin on such ultra-sensitive matters as whether or not Musk’s Starlink satellites can connect to Taiwan, and various proposals for settling the Russia-Ukraine war. As of this writing, the Russians have denied the story, and Musk has had no comment.
Yet assuming the conversations are true and are being characterized accurately, a key question jumps out: How did the Journal get this information?
The article is bylined no fewer than five reporters, citing “American, European, and Russian sources.” It’s possible that these quotes could have been pieced together by people in the room, second-hand memoranda of conversations, and so on. However, the simplifying and clarifying logic of Occam’s Razor suggests that the most likely source is intercepts. That is, wiretaps—someone with technological means listening in.
Such intercepts are done routinely, world-wide, by the National Security Agency (NSA). Back in 2013, we learned just how comprehensive and effective this surveillance can be from the disclosures of Edward Snowden, an American NSA contractor who then fled to Russia, where he lives to this day. One needn’t approve of Snowden’s treacherous actions to acknowledge the bottom line: The NSA strives to listen to everything, anywhere, all the time.
Can the U.S. government really do all this? Is Uncle Sam that good? That’s unclear. Yet reports hold that the Kremlin is using analogue typewriters—you know, with clacking keys and ribbons—as a way of safeguarding its secrets from electronic eavesdropping. Yet “snail mail” devices do less good if leaders still communicate on the telephone or by webcam.
Meanwhile other countries—starting with Russia, but also including China and Israel—are constantly questing for similar interception capabilities. It’s likely, too, that some corporations have developed their own capability. Mark Zuckerberg, who should know, puts tape over the built-in camera on his personal devices.
On October 25 came reports that foreign malefactors had targeted the phones used by top officials in both presidential campaigns, including the candidates. With what effect? Nobody knows–at least not yet.
Yes, it’s an endless game of cat-and-mouse, all conducted in a wilderness of mirrors. (We should also keep in mind that tales of technological wizardry can be misdirection, designed to cloak the reality that humint is actually doing the skullduggery. After all, if counter-intelligence authorities are convinced they should be hunting for a tech bug, they might be overlooking the human mole.)
So if the sources and methods are murky, we’re left to ponder another aspect of the Journal’s October 24 scoop: the motive. Here we can apply the the question even older than the Romans: cui bono? That is, follow the principle that he who benefits from an act is the most likely cause of the act.
So who would benefit from hurting Musk? Since Musk has emerged as a full-auto MAGA Trump supporter, it’s easy enough to deduce that the strongest motive is with the Biden-Harris administration. After all, it wishes to see Kamala Harris win the upcoming election (with perhaps a few exceptions who don’t count much anymore).
Toward that goal, hitting Musk might help. As of now, it’s impossible to prove or disprove this hypothesis, and yet the current fact-pattern endorses it—as does a past fact-pattern.
That pattern—the “intelligence community” disrupting a Donald Trump-related process, with Russians in the mix—showed itself nearly a decade ago, during the two-month transition between the Obama and Trump presidencies.
On November 18, 2016, the president-elect named retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn to be his national security adviser. But then, on January 12, 2017, The Washington Post reported, “According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29,” to speak of classified matters. The tone of the story was that this was a bombshell. The Post warned darkly about violations of the Logan Act and other potential breaches of law and national security.
Back then, this author smelled a rat. A few days later, here at Breitbart News, I observed, “Trump administration officials are getting the Deep State treatment.” Focusing on the question as how the Post got wind of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations—which surely came from intercepts—I added, “Such disclosures aren’t legal, but once again, nobody in Washington, D.C., seems to care.”
This was, of course, during the time that “Russiagate” accusations were flying. Amidst that frenzy, Flynn was driven out of the White House after just three weeks. Later that same year, 2017, he pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak. Flynn’s view of the case, shared by experts, is that he was entrapped by James Comey and his “Crossfire Hurricane” operation. (On November 25, 2020, Trump pardoned Flynn.)
Thinking back on that time, when Trump was struggling against the Deep State, we should recall Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) cynical comment to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Speaking of Trump, Schumer continued, “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”
Of course, what Schumer called “dumb,” others would call “courageous,” Trump fighting the good fight.
Today, another gutsy businessman, Elon Musk, find himself targeted. Only instead of the Washington Post, it’s now the Wall Street Journal. The latter newspaper is owned, of course by Rupert Murdoch, who has been mostly hostile to Trump.
And while Murdoch’s views of Musk are less clear, it seems fair to speculate that the media mogul isn’t pleased to see Musk helping Trump.
Indeed, Murdoch could well be personally jealous of Musk, now that Musk’s X site has eclipsed the Journal, and also Fox News, as the leading vehicle for right-leaning opinion and activism. (Another Murdoch property, the New York Post, has endorsed Trump, although only after a quest to find a different Republican presidential candidate.)
So what will happen in the wake of the Journal story? Already, the usual suspects are jumping on it. Alexander Vindman declared, “Elon is just another useful idiot for Putin and the Russian security services to deploy.” Vindman added, “The problem is Elon has access to many national secrets.” Keith Olbermann called for the federal government to sever all links to Musk.
Without a doubt, plenty of lefty lawyers—including some at the U.S. Department of Justice—are combing through the Journal story with an eye toward some sort of legal action. And of course, we don’t know what, if anything, the Journal has yet to drop.
In the meantime, righty lawyers—including those who work for Republicans lawmakers on Capitol Hill—might be asking questions of their own: First, is it smart for U.S. government agencies to be tipping off the world as to their surveillance capabilities? Second, it is it legal to violate the privacy of Elon Musk American citizen? Third, is the intel community once again seeking to influence a presidential election? That’s illegal, even though it seems to happen a lot.
