Old, grumpy spies exploring conspiracy theories. Follow “Mission Implausible” podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…

BREAKING: Russian hacker groups NoName057 and Z-Pentest have claimed responsibility for cyberattacks targeting refrigeration systems and supermarkets across Europe.

From roughly 2km away, I managed to film some of this morning’s attacks on Dnipro. I’ve redacted anything that could be restricted, but I think it’s vital that the world sees Russian barbarism for what it is. This week, the UN reported Russian crimes against humanity. Russia’s response? Keep bombing Ukraine’s energy facilities regardless. And Russia holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Putin is making his intentions clear, leaving civilians facing winter without electricity, heating or water. Make no mistake, there is no indication of a Kremlin preparing for peace. 🇺🇦

Wall Street Journal editorial on "Donald Barack Merkel": wsj.com/opinion/europe-russi…

Today, I sent a letter putting New Jersey’s port and terminal operators on notice: importing Russian diesel violates federal law and could carry serious civil and criminal consequences. New Jersey will not stand by while Donald Trump supports Vladimir Putin at the expense of Americans. Instead of lowering costs, these imports help finance Putin’s war against Ukraine and a campaign of violence and terror that endangers our servicemembers abroad. As a Navy veteran, I cannot let that stand unchallenged. Our ports must not be complicit.

I think it’s terrible that a man who endured horrendous captivity, who should have been exchanged with us in 2022 and spent years exposed to filtered news and Russian propaganda, is now being paraded in front of the press just days after his exchange. He deserves care, time and space to recover.

oops

Dear Secretary Bessent @SecScottBessent, My name is Everett Stern. In 2010 I was a compliance officer at @HSBC. From a back office in New Castle, Delaware, I watched billions of dollars move to drug cartels, sanctioned regimes, and terrorist organizations. The enemies of the United States. I documented it, I escalated it, and when the bank would not act, I took it to the @FBI, the @CIA, and eventually the @SECGov. The result was a $1.92 billion settlement. At the time, it was one of the largest in American history. It was also about five weeks of the bank’s profit. Not one banker was charged. Not one went to prison. I paid a different price. I lost my career, my savings, and my place in the industry I had trained for. I was blacklisted. Every door in American finance closed at once. I slept on a camping cot in a 300 square foot apartment because I could not afford a bed, and I waited tables at @PFChangs to eat. I tell you this not for sympathy, but so you understand that I know exactly what it costs to do the right thing in American finance, and exactly how little the system does in return. I made that sacrifice because I believed it would change something. Yesterday, your department fined @BankofAmerica $1.2 billion for failing to report more than $5 billion in suspicious transactions, some of it tied by your own findings to Chinese laundering networks, narcotics, and the southwest border, alongside 475 apparent sanctions violations touching Russia, Iran, and global terrorism. The bank admitted it willfully violated the Bank Secrecy Act. Fourteen years after HSBC. A bank with “America” in its name. And once again, not one individual charged. Secretary Bessent, I want to say plainly what I believe you already know. The fines are not working. A fine is paid by shareholders, absorbed by the balance sheet, and forgotten by the next earnings call. Bank of America reported earnings this morning. Nobody who set the alert thresholds, nobody who decided the 2024 cease and desist could wait, nobody who chose the backlog over the law will lose a single thing they value. Their lives are untouched. That is the entire reason the behavior repeats. This is money laundering. This is blood money. Money that reaches a cartel buys fentanyl that kills Americans. Money that reaches a terrorist organization buys the next attack. This country has fought a war on drugs and a war on terror for decades, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, and all the while we have allowed the financing to flow through institutions we charter and regulate. Cut off the money and we win. We have never seriously tried. There is also a question of equal justice that I cannot let go. Before I walked into the FBI building to report HSBC, I stopped in front of the Great Seal on the wall and read the words engraved beneath it: “Justice is the defense of our liberty.” I believed that. I still want to. But every day in this country, people go to prison for crimes that are nothing next to moving money for the people who want Americans dead. A suit, a title, and a corporate badge should not be a shield from the consequences that apply to everyone else. If a street dealer goes to prison for what he sells, the banker who moved the cartel’s money should be standing next to him. I also want to raise something that is rarely said in these conversations. Why has no one inside Bank of America come forward the way I did? The answer is that everyone in American banking knows what happened to me, and to the whistleblowers who came after. The last person who spoke up is the only policy anyone believes. That is a culture problem, and it starts with leadership, in the banks and in the agencies that regulate them. This is not a political issue. It has spanned administrations of both parties. It is a national security issue, and I am asking you to treat it as one. Three things would change the math overnight. Refer individuals for criminal prosecution. Not the analyst in the queue. The executives who set the thresholds and chose the risk. One banker in handcuffs would do more than every fine in Treasury’s history combined. End “too big to jail.” An institution cannot be too big to fail and too big to jail at the same time. If it is the first, it must be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. And if Bank of America will not act as America’s bank, review its charter. A national charter is a privilege granted on behalf of the American people. It should be conditioned on not moving money for the people trying to kill them. Secretary Bessent, you said yesterday that these actions send a clear message that even the biggest institutions are not above the law. With respect, the institution was never the problem. The people inside it are above the law, and they know it. Until that changes, I will keep writing letters like this one, and the next bank will keep paying the next fine. I gave up everything I had to stop this. I am asking you to use the power you have to finish it. Respectfully, Everett A. Stern HSBC Whistleblower Founder and Intelligence Director, Tactical Rabbit

“If you don’t like public executions just don’t watch it” says the crowd trying to ban drag shows

Seven experts mapped where Putin could escalate next, country by country. The most experienced one among them says the map is the wrong lens entirely. John Sipher, a 28-year CIA veteran, argues Russia's real target for the next year isn't a border, it's Western political division itself. Trump's recent friction with allies like Canada, Denmark, and South Korea reads to Moscow as a signal that the gap between Washington and Europe is finally wide enough to push through. The other experts back this up with specifics. Germany just formally blamed Russia for drones found near a Ukrainian cargo plane at Leipzig airport and is closing Russia's consulate in Bonn over it. Poland has logged a drone incursion, a crashed cruise missile, an arson attack tied to Russian intelligence, and rail sabotage since 2022. Romania has destroyed an explosive-laden maritime drone near an offshore gas project. None of that is disputed or hypothetical, it's already happened. Sipher's point is that none of these incidents need to add up to an invasion to succeed. If Russian information operations can convince enough people that NATO is obsolete, Ukraine is a lost cause, and Washington isn't worth following, Moscow gets the outcome it wants without crossing a single border. atlanticcouncil.org/dispatch…

John Sipher and Julia Curlee examine the CIA for politicization and more - @BulwarkOnline thebulwark.com/p/the-cia-dir…

RT @DrLiz16: Dans The Bulwark, deux anciens de la CIA, John Sipher et Julia Curlee, livrent une charge très sévère contre John Ratcliffe :…

Defectors have been warning the West about the power and brutality of the Russian security services, writes former CIA officer John Sipher ti.me/3osLshO

John Sipher, retired CIA officer: If You Want to Understand Russian Power, Listen to the People Who Leave It - Secret Russian sources almost always make the choice to help the West after concluding that their system is evil and must be destroyed. time.com/6281663/russia-vlad…

In our latest TV ad, John Sipher, a 28-year veteran of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, discusses my work protecting Americans and keeping our country safe from threats. #VA07

A strong and revealing damage assessment by Steady State members Julia Curlee and John Sipher. A MUST READ. zurl.co/wS22h

Good article from John Sipher and Julie Curlee.

"In an administration of amateurs, talk-show hosts, and relatives, CIA Director John Ratcliffe stands out by not standing out." That could be a good thing, but it's probably not. New from John Sipher and Julia Curlee: lnk.thebulwark.com/4Ao8Zkb

Must read thoughtful piece from two agency vets. This will cause much debate amongst the “formers.” It goes against the conventional wisdom amongst formers and frankly the entire DC blob that Ratcliffe is the only adult in the room and should be lauded. Ie, the bar is so very low, that even mediocrity is applauded. Perhaps true, but in this piece, the argument goes-shouldn’t we want and demand much more? Answer of course is yes.

They’re sitting opposite a man who’s committed the most heinous war crimes, the darkest chapters of European history, torturing, executing POW’s in Nazi style filtration camps, stole children, held Ukrainians to ransom over basic human rights while continually bombing cities with cluster munitions, white phosphorus, killing mothers, children and the elderly. This is how Steve Witkoff greets the biggest killer of Christian’s since Hitler.

This morning, an explosive report from The Washington Post’s Alex Horton and Tara Copp is shaping up to be the most devastating blow to Pete Hegseth’s leadership during his tenure as Trump’s Secretary of Defense — and arguably the most embarrassing pushback against a SecDef in decades. Two weeks ago—only just being revealed now—four top military commanders gave “non-concurs” on Hegseth extending operations in the War in Iran, their reasoning outlined in the Aug. 14th edition of the Secretary of Defense Orders Book (SDOB), a classified briefing typically presented twice a month to the SecDef by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Think of the SDOB as a blunt summary of U.S. military operations worldwide: here are the assets we have, here are the places our units are currently deployed, this is our trajectory in line with national security priorities, here are our recommendations relating to the SecDef’s orders, etc. In this particular edition of the SDOB, the heads of U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command—along with the Chief of Naval Operations—each offered a “non-concur” in response to Hegseth’s plan to extend forces in the War in Iran. Army and Air Force officials reportedly “concurred” with Hegseth’s strategy but expressed significant concerns regarding the challenges. Their collective reasoning amounts to the operation being “unsustainable” and degrading force readiness in other parts of the world and basically putting our military in a globally weaker position for potential wars in the future. As Ms. Copp and Mr. Horton correctly highlighted in their reporting, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Daryl Caudle, offered the most immediately concerning feedback: quite simply that the U.S. Navy cannot sustain force readiness at the current level in the Iran operation. That’s basically the bus driver turning their head around an hour into a road trip and pointing out that we can’t do this on a quarter tank of gas. Oh, and one or two tires might be flat. Oh, and no there’s no spare available. To be clear, it’s not highly unusual for a military commander to give a “non-concur” in an SDOB that’s backed up with a reasonable assessment. The SDOB is intended to be an avenue through which top military commanders can disagree with the SecDef’s grand strategy and/or offer honest feedback, but in current practice—in this Pentagon and under this president—mere disagreement, even in a classified setting, is obviously quite risky. Several generals and admirals have been fired or forced into early retirement in the past year over their private disagreements with Trump and Hegseth. In August of 2025, Hegseth fired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, when LTG Kruse produced a preliminary intelligence assessment that contradicted Trump and Hegseth, claiming their missile strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities that June had only set back the regime’s nuclear program “by months” and had not “completely obliterated” them as Trump and Hegseth had told the American public. Last October, Admiral Alvin Holsey, then-head of U.S. Southern Command, was reportedly forced out when he clashed with Hegseth over operations in Latin America and the growing concern over the legality of the Pentagon’s strikes on civilian boats. Hegseth then forced out Gen. George Randy—the widely-respected Army Chief of Staff—this past April, supposedly over the general’s refusal to shut down an investigation into the unauthorized and highly controversial helicopter flyby of Kid Rock’s property in Tennessee. These aren’t including the wider purge of generals and admirals during Hegseth’s time leading the Pentagon, mostly based on anti-DEI reasoning: U.S. Air Force General (and then-Chairman of the JCS) Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown, Jr. in February of 2025; U.S. Navy Admiral (and then-Chief of Naval of Operations) Lisa Franchetti the same month; U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Lisa Fagan (and then-Commandant) early in the admin — and the list goes on and on. Nearly all of them were removed early in their tenures, most with no clear reasoning given for their removals. The first 19 months of Trump 2.0 have been characterized by what seems to be an ongoing, blatant campaign of intimidation to keep senior brass in the Pentagon toeing the line and not pushing back against administration officials. That’s partly what makes this morning’s story all the more jarring. While it’s not necessarily a red flag or particularly unusual for a senior military officer to disagree respectfully in these classified briefings—even before Trump’s time—there’s simply no precedent for the range of disagreement that was registered across military branches in the Aug. 14th SDOB. If any of the defense secretaries under Presidents Biden, Obama, or Bush had gotten this degree and range of pushback from top uniformed personnel, there would be immediate congressional hearings, calls for resignations, and talks of impeachment. In this especially heightened environment of censorship and browbeating within the current culture of the Pentagon, four of the most senior military officers serving at the highest levels of our national security apparatus made it clear to Hegseth, in no uncertain terms, that they disagree with his strategy regarding Iran, which, after the sluggish economy, has grown into the most potent weakness Trump has with the American people. Only 31 percent approved of Trump’s handling of Iran in a Reuters/Ipsos poll released earlier this week, down from 34 percent at the start of this month and 37 percent back in February, a shift that is blamed on a growing number of Republican voters turning against the operation. Moreover, someone had to leak the information contained in this classified briefing and did so knowing that it would further confirm the extraordinary weakness the Trump administration has exhibited in its apparently dead-on-arrival “negotiations” with the Iranian regime to end the war. In political circles in D.C., across party lines, it is the consensus perception that the War in Iran has already been lost. Nothing has been accomplished in service to the range of dubiously-claimed objectives sloppily laid out by Trump, but worse than that, the Iranian regime is in a stronger position than it was this past February when the operation was launched. Nothing has gone right. Traditional allies of the U.S. have been openly critical of the operation and resistant—if not directly opposed—to assisting in it. The Pentagon has been besieged by reports on everything from depleted weapons stockpiles to service members enduring intolerable living conditions, most notably on the USS Abraham Lincoln. The Strait of Hormuz—the shipping lane for trade in the region, critical for commerce and security around the globe—has been completely closed or partially closed for the past six months. Despite Trump’s claims that commercial vessels are getting through, he fails to mention that shipping is down more than 90 percent from its usual traffic, which will soon compound the economic consequences already being felt globally and certainly here in the United States. On top of that, the Iranian regime is more extremist now and far less conducive to cooperating with the U.S. government in a way that would be beneficial to our own interests, notably national security and preventing the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. This leak emerging from the Pentagon will significantly weaken the already anemic position of the Trump administration in negotiating at least some kind of face-saving resolution to what is clearly the most embarrassing foreign policy venture in recent memory, even more so than Iraq. In six months, Trump and Hegseth have managed to diminish our military readiness, weaken our economy, alienate our allies, strengthen the Iranian regime, and get civilians and service members needlessly killed — all without any concessions that would justify the operation in the first place. It has been enormously costly, egregiously humiliating, and wholly without gain. In light of all this, perhaps the cordial lack of confidence in Hegseth expressed by our senior military leaders is being rather kind on their part. ---- Link to full essay available here for easier sharing: charlotteclymer.substack.com…