Photo credit: Andriezas | Dreamstime.com

With the bombshell reporting that came from the New York Times in Friday about payments made from the United States of America's government to Russian officials in exchange for dirt on President Donald J. Trump, Americans have to ask how this is being accepted by our citizens and why the media isn't blowing this story through hell and high water?

The exclusive report from the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>suggests that months if top-secret negotiations occurred between intelligence agencies inside of the United States and the Russian agent provocateur who is alleged to have eastern European European Cybercriminal ties.

The initial goal for the inevitable deal between the parties was for the American government to secure stolen cyber weapons and spying tools that belonged to the National Security Agency (NSA).

The American and European intelligence services involved in the deal were set to exchange $1 million in cash inside of a Berlin hotel room in September for the cyber weaponry, the first of a series of installments to be made for the tools stolen from the NSA.

During the attempts to bargain with the alleged shady Russian individual, he made note that he also had supposedly "compromising" information on American Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump that could link the Trump campaign to Russia, the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>reports.

American intelligence officials claim that they "insisted" they weren't interested in the information on Donald Trump or his associates, but it appears that once the counterparts met for the exchange that the Russian agent attempted to provide the Americans with "possibly fabricated" bank records, emails, and "other Russian intelligence data" on the President of the United States of America instead of the spying tools.

Some of the stories provided must be questioned, simply because the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>reports that the meeting took place in September of 2017, which was nearly a year after President Trump's election.

We know there were initial reports about stolen NSA spying tools in October of 2017 by NBC, and at that time it was alleged that at least one of the NSA contractors, Harold Martin, had been arrested for stealing classified documents.

The problem? That<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nsa-contractor-busted-alleged-theft-secret-documents-n660331"> NBC report </a>states that Martin was arrested on August 27th of 2017.

Are these the same "tools"? Or are we talking a different series of events entirely? How many times have the NSA had their files stolen, and apparently, somehow placed into the hands of "Russians" as per the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>exclusive?

We also know that<a href="https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_9535708.html"> Wikileaks </a>released the highly anticipated CIA/NSA hacking tools as part of their Vault 7 release, but the<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/wikileaks-says-it-has-obtained-trove-of-cia-hacking-tools/2017/03/07/c8c50c5c-0345-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html?utm_term=.422b84c6664c"> Washington Post </a>first reported that in March of 2017.

Some of the<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-nsa-hack-but-were-afraid-to-google/"> Wikileaks </a>dumps of NSA tools are believed to be part of the Shadow Brokers theft, and those can date back to the spring of 2016.

Is this a distraction effort from the media to protect American intelligence agencies who legitimately sought out information on Trump as part of an ongoing conspiracy to take down the President, or is this a legitimate theft of NSA tools by Russians were discussing?

All are interesting questions.

The<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>wrote the following:

<blockquote>"The Russian claimed to have access to a staggering collection of secrets that included everything from the computer code for the cyberweapons stolen from the N.S.A. and C.I.A. to what he said was a video of Mr. Trump consorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room in 2013, according to American and European officials and the Russian, who agreed to be interviewed in Germany on the condition of anonymity. There remains no evidence that such a video exists."</blockquote>

We're truthfully unsure, and you're not likely to get a legitimate answer from any American intelligence agency in any way.

When the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>broke their story on Friday, they claimed the NSA simply stated that "all NSA employees have a lifetime obligation to protect classified information."

Such clandestine operations aren't often made public, although recently there was the strange report that the NSA had sent cryptic tweets via its public Twitter account to communicate with foreign spies, although we're uncertain as to what those cryptic tweets were in regards to or whom they were intended for.

What remains clear, is that the current investigation into the alleged "Russian collusion" claims are unfounded and continue to expose the Democratic Party as well as federal intelligence agencies in the process.

Strangely enough, the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>reports that the overly eager desire from this shadowy Russian figure was an effort to "turn the United States of America's intelligence agencies against President Trump," which makes this entire narrative even more confusing.

Had the Russian cybercriminal not offered to lower his original asking price from $10 million to the final agreed-upon $1 million, American intelligence agents may not have noticed the willingness to give this information on President Trump to the parties involved.

Make no mistake, despite there not being evidence of any Russian meddling with the Trump campaign, Russia isn't exactly an "ally" of the United States of America.

Parts of the story seem that if the report from the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>is indeed true, that the Russians would love nothing more than to further divide the President and the intelligence community.

Also, it would seem just as likely that this story was planted into the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>by the American intelligence community as a distraction.

We can never be sure. Disinformation is the name of the game for the intelligence community and when it comes to such an arena keeping the public as far away from the truth as possible is beneficial for operations surrounding the agencies, both foreign and domestic.

The<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>alleges that a few months after lowering the negotiated price to $1 million, that this shadowy character met with an "American businessman," who worked as an intermediary between the intelligence community and the Russian counterparts.

During that time, the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>alleges, this Russian figure provided a 15-second video that shows a man meeting with two Russian prostitutes.

The Russian allegedly claims that its President Trump. However, there's no way to make out for certain who the man is in the video, according to the report.

The<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>also says there are legitimate questions about the Russian individual's credibility, stating he has a history of money laundering and other small-time crimes.

I find it fascinating that someone provided all of this information to the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>in this much detail, and it almost makes you question the legitimacy of the story they were fed. It sounds as if it could very well be disinformation.

Of course, there's no way to be certain. Any American must question these "anonymous sources," at any given time.

It is believed however that the alleged hacking tools belonging to the NSA would be of pertinent value, so if the story is true the intelligence community would have no doubt continued to pursue these tools.

The<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>says the cyber weapons were but with the intention of infiltrating both Russia and China's security, making their value incredible.

Crediting the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times</a>, they've acknowledged that such a Russian figure would no doubt see this as an opportunity to cause division in America, and that is crucial to the Russian geopolitical chess match against America.

In closing the<a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/politics/us-cyberweapons-russia-trump.html"> New York Times </a>suggests that a final deal was made and $100,000 was exchanged, in return for a small cache of data that are alleged to contain information on Trump associates and in relation to the 2016 elections, but not the desired hacking tools.

If true, this means the government bought information (whether true or not) from a Russian about President Trump.

We can't be certain what's on this, if it happened at all, or if this is exactly how the events happened.

What we can be certain of, is that it seems as if someone has a desire to put this information into the public's mind, but as to whom, we remain unsure.

<strong><span style="color:red;">Tips? Info? Send me a message!</span></strong>

—<i>[email protected]</i>

<i>Follow Me On Twitter:</i>

<a href="https://www.twitter.com/IWillRedPillYou">@IWillRedPillYou</a>