teyler/epstein-files-20k · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 145k
filename,text
IMAGES-005-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020367.txt,"215

The final choice he was made to board a non-stop flight to Moscow on June 23, 2013.
To remain in Hong Kong once a criminal complaint was leveled against him would have meant
that, at the very minimum, Hong Kong authorities would seize him and the alleged stolen property
of the US government in his possession. Even if he was released on bail, the Hong Kong
authorities would almost certainly retain all the NSA and GCHQ files he had gone to such lengths
to steal. He also would not be allowed to leave Hong Kong and possibly denied any access to the
Internet. As he demonstrated by his subsequent actions, this option was not acceptable to him.

Once the U.S. criminal complaint was unsealed on June 21, 2013, which became all but
inevitable after his video, his only route out of Hong Kong went through two adversaries of the
United States, China and Russia. China, as far as is known, did not offer him sanctuary.
According to one U.S diplomat, it may have already obtained copies of Snowden’s NSA files, and
did not want the problem of having Snowden defect to Beijing. In any case, if it had not already
acquired the files. It could assume it would receive that intelligence data from its Russian ally in
the intelligence war. Whatever its reason, China did not use its considerable power in Hong
Kong to block Snowden’s exit.

Nor did Snowden obtain a visa to any country in Latin America or elsewhere during his month-
long stay in Hong Kong. As in the oft-cited Sherlock Holmes’ clue of the dog that did not bark,
Snowden’s lack of any visas in his passport strongly suggests that he had not made plans to go
anyplace but where he went: Moscow. His actions here, including his contacts with Russian
officials in Hong Kong, speak louder than his words.

Snowden chose, if he had any choice left at all, the Russian option. Just as he believed Chinese
intelligence could protect him in Hong Kong from the United States, he could assume that the
FSB could protect him in Moscow from the United States. He was not entirely na* ve about its
capabilities. During his service in the CIA, he had taken a month-long training course at the CIA’s
“farm” at Fort Peary in which counterintelligence officer taught about the capabilities the Russian
security services

To be sure, he might not have known that Moscow would be his final destination. He may
have naively believed that Russia would allow a defector from the NSA who claimed to have had
access to the NSA’s sources in Russia and China leave Moscow before its security services
obtained that information. But that was not to be.

It is not uncommon for a defector to change sides in order to find a better life for himself in
another country. Some defectors flee to escape a repressive government or to find one in which
they believe they are more closely attuned. But Russia is ordinarily not the country of choice for
someone such as Snowden seeking greater civil liberties and personal freedom. So why did
Snowden choose Russia for his new life?

The four choices that Snowden made in 2013 did not come out of the blue. They all were
planned out well in advance. He applied for the job to Booz Allen in February 2013, more than a
month before leaving his job at Dell. He applied to Booz Allen for his medical leave, although in
fact he had no medical problem, a month before departing for Hong Kong. He brought with him
to Hong Kong enough cash to pay his living expenses, according to him, for the next two years.
He arranged the encrypted channel with Poitras in February 2013, three months before he would
induce her to come to Hong Kong. He made contact with a foreign diplomatic mission at least a
month before flying to Moscow and, at some point, met with Russian officials, who arranged a
visa-less entry for him. He called Assange in London to arrange for Wikileaks help, 13 days

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020367
"
IMAGES-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011104.txt,"What matters is return. I don’t have to specify “risk-adjusted” return so long as \|
describe the collective scale alone. Collective return is implicitly average-risk return.
I prioritize it on the reasoning that optimizing employment of people and plant is
implicit, and that optimizing means putting them to work most productively rather

than over the most hours.

If policy maximizes rate of return, at the collective scale, it will maximize true output
perforce. Return is output divided by total capital producing it. More return is more
output per unit capital. Putting idle plant and people to work, in a slump, is a step in
the right direction. But it doesn’t get the job done unless they work productively.
Even putting money under the mattress is better than investing at a loss. Zero
return is better than negative return. \| accept Keynes’ distinction between new
investment and transfer payments. But I see the latter as part of the mechanics that

ends up in the former. Maximize return, and full employment will happen.

Keynes’ opposition is now mostly the Chicago school and other “freshwater” schools
bordering the Great Lakes and along inland rivers. Somehow the taste for Keynesian
intervention resonated best in “saltwater” seaboard school such as Harvard, MIT,
Stanford, and University of California. It is probably no coincidence that the
saltwater states are the “blue” ones tending to vote Democrat, while the freshwater
ones are the “red” ones favoring Republicans. (I call myself a free market Democrat,
whether or not that’s a contradiction in terms.) Freshwater views tend to oppose
intervention, but accept Keynesian basic definitions and equations such as the

Y =] +C doctrine and the distinction between “attempted saving” and investment.

It is these I question.

I] don’t think much of his view that intended saving (consumption foregone)
becomes actual saving only if invested, and becomes an equal amount of physical
capital growth if it is. Then (actual) net saving, net investment and physical capital
growth would become synonymous. \| said why I prefer a language where saving

and investment are synonymous in the first place. What matters is rate of return.

Chapter 8 Banks, Money and Macroeconomics 2/8/16 15

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011104
"
TEXT-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031683.txt,"From: J [jeevacation@gmail.com]
Sent: 5/30/2019 9:34:38 PM
To: Michael Wolff

filename,text

IMAGES-005-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020367.txt,"215

The final choice he was made to board a non-stop flight to Moscow on June 23, 2013.

To remain in Hong Kong once a criminal complaint was leveled against him would have meant

that, at the very minimum, Hong Kong authorities would seize him and the alleged stolen property

of the US government in his possession. Even if he was released on bail, the Hong Kong

authorities would almost certainly retain all the NSA and GCHQ files he had gone to such lengths

to steal. He also would not be allowed to leave Hong Kong and possibly denied any access to the

Internet. As he demonstrated by his subsequent actions, this option was not acceptable to him.

Once the U.S. criminal complaint was unsealed on June 21, 2013, which became all but

inevitable after his video, his only route out of Hong Kong went through two adversaries of the

United States, China and Russia. China, as far as is known, did not offer him sanctuary.

According to one U.S diplomat, it may have already obtained copies of Snowden’s NSA files, and

did not want the problem of having Snowden defect to Beijing. In any case, if it had not already

acquired the files. It could assume it would receive that intelligence data from its Russian ally in

the intelligence war. Whatever its reason, China did not use its considerable power in Hong

Kong to block Snowden’s exit.

Nor did Snowden obtain a visa to any country in Latin America or elsewhere during his month-

long stay in Hong Kong. As in the oft-cited Sherlock Holmes’ clue of the dog that did not bark,

Snowden’s lack of any visas in his passport strongly suggests that he had not made plans to go

anyplace but where he went: Moscow. His actions here, including his contacts with Russian

officials in Hong Kong, speak louder than his words.

Snowden chose, if he had any choice left at all, the Russian option. Just as he believed Chinese

intelligence could protect him in Hong Kong from the United States, he could assume that the

FSB could protect him in Moscow from the United States. He was not entirely na* ve about its

capabilities. During his service in the CIA, he had taken a month-long training course at the CIA’s

“farm” at Fort Peary in which counterintelligence officer taught about the capabilities the Russian

security services

To be sure, he might not have known that Moscow would be his final destination. He may

have naively believed that Russia would allow a defector from the NSA who claimed to have had

access to the NSA’s sources in Russia and China leave Moscow before its security services

obtained that information. But that was not to be.

It is not uncommon for a defector to change sides in order to find a better life for himself in

another country. Some defectors flee to escape a repressive government or to find one in which

they believe they are more closely attuned. But Russia is ordinarily not the country of choice for

someone such as Snowden seeking greater civil liberties and personal freedom. So why did

Snowden choose Russia for his new life?

The four choices that Snowden made in 2013 did not come out of the blue. They all were

planned out well in advance. He applied for the job to Booz Allen in February 2013, more than a

month before leaving his job at Dell. He applied to Booz Allen for his medical leave, although in

fact he had no medical problem, a month before departing for Hong Kong. He brought with him

to Hong Kong enough cash to pay his living expenses, according to him, for the next two years.

He arranged the encrypted channel with Poitras in February 2013, three months before he would

induce her to come to Hong Kong. He made contact with a foreign diplomatic mission at least a

month before flying to Moscow and, at some point, met with Russian officials, who arranged a

visa-less entry for him. He called Assange in London to arrange for Wikileaks help, 13 days

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020367

"

IMAGES-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011104.txt,"What matters is return. I don’t have to specify “risk-adjusted” return so long as |

describe the collective scale alone. Collective return is implicitly average-risk return.

I prioritize it on the reasoning that optimizing employment of people and plant is

implicit, and that optimizing means putting them to work most productively rather

than over the most hours.

If policy maximizes rate of return, at the collective scale, it will maximize true output

perforce. Return is output divided by total capital producing it. More return is more

output per unit capital. Putting idle plant and people to work, in a slump, is a step in

the right direction. But it doesn’t get the job done unless they work productively.

Even putting money under the mattress is better than investing at a loss. Zero

return is better than negative return. | accept Keynes’ distinction between new

investment and transfer payments. But I see the latter as part of the mechanics that

ends up in the former. Maximize return, and full employment will happen.

Keynes’ opposition is now mostly the Chicago school and other “freshwater” schools

bordering the Great Lakes and along inland rivers. Somehow the taste for Keynesian

intervention resonated best in “saltwater” seaboard school such as Harvard, MIT,

Stanford, and University of California. It is probably no coincidence that the

saltwater states are the “blue” ones tending to vote Democrat, while the freshwater

ones are the “red” ones favoring Republicans. (I call myself a free market Democrat,

whether or not that’s a contradiction in terms.) Freshwater views tend to oppose

intervention, but accept Keynesian basic definitions and equations such as the

Y =] +C doctrine and the distinction between “attempted saving” and investment.

It is these I question.

I] don’t think much of his view that intended saving (consumption foregone)

becomes actual saving only if invested, and becomes an equal amount of physical

capital growth if it is. Then (actual) net saving, net investment and physical capital

growth would become synonymous. | said why I prefer a language where saving

and investment are synonymous in the first place. What matters is rate of return.

Chapter 8 Banks, Money and Macroeconomics 2/8/16 15

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011104

"

TEXT-001-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031683.txt,"From: J [jeevacation@gmail.com]

Sent: 5/30/2019 9:34:38 PM

To: Michael Wolff