CIA pushes back on fictional report that it was bilked by Russian offering information on Trump
Last edited Sun Feb 11, 2018, 11:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: The Hill
The CIA in a recent statement pushed back against reporting that said U.S. spies were swindled out of $100,000 during secret negotiations meant to obtain stolen cyber tools.
"The fictional story that CIA was bilked out of $100,000 is patently false," the spy agency said in a statement reported by AFP.
"The people swindled here were James Risen and Matt Rosenberg," the CIA added, referring to The Intercept and New York Times reporters, respectively, who wrote the stories.
The New York Times, which reported that U.S. spies paid $100,000 to a Russian who said he could provide them with previously stolen hacking tools, did not specifically say the CIA footed the bill, but said the funds came through an indirect channel.
Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/cia/373323-cia-pushes-back-on-fictional-report-that-it-was-bilked-by
Rosenberg, the NYTimes writer, has responded to the CIA statement. He replied that the CIA falsely accused him of saying that CIA funds paid the Russian; he claims that he only said the Russian was paid indirectly.
But he is being disingenuous when he says that he referred to an "indirect channel' rather than the CIA as the source of funds. The title of his NYTimes piece is: "U.S. Spies, Seeking to Retrieve Cyberweapons, Paid Russian Peddling Trump Secrets"
Also, the article itself says:
Late that month, the American businessman delivered the $100,000 payment. Some officials said it was United States government money but routed through an indirect channel.
And even if the CIA used an "indirect channel" as a bagman, that doesn't mean the funds weren't US government funds.
Link to tweet
= new reply since forum marked as read
It is getting to be very common to see the Intercept here as a source. 
