Sunday, June 20, 2021

Controversy Swirling Around Chinese Defector

Red State, which has the lead on information releases regarding the Chinese defector--said to be former MSS head of counterintelligence Dong Jingwei--who is reported to have provided blockbuster inside information regarding the release of Covid-19 from the Wuhan labs, is reporting tonight about the controversy around their stories:

Reactions to RedState's Exclusive Reporting on Chinese Defector Dong Jingwei Show Disturbing Pattern

The whole long story is mostly Jennifer Van Laar defending her reporting--which is entirely understandable.

However, what caught my attention was a quote of Pat Lang. This quote does appear at Lang's blog, Turcopolier, so it reflects his views:

Comments from Col. Patrick Lang who at the Defense Intelligence Agency, was the defense intelligence officer (DIO) for the Middle East, South Asia and counter-terrorism, and later, the first director of the Defense Humint Service.

At the DIA, he was a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service. He participated in the drafting of National Intelligence Estimates. From 1992 to 1994, all the U.S. military attach├ęs worldwide reported to him.

These are his thoughts on Chinese Defector “Dong”:

OK pilgrim turcopoles, here is the deal. This man, as Chinese counter-intelligence boss looked around the IC and decided that he was most likely to survive an internal leak if he defected to DIA.

That means that in spite of the fact that DIA had an internal Chinese mole (recently arrested at DIA request by the FBI), the rest of the agencies are worse in the level in Chinese intelligence penetration not only of their analytic people but also of their operations staff.

How do I know that? Material from the defector (Dong) would not normally be shared with analysts if it had his name in it. His identity would be held in operational channels.

Clearly, this man believes that; CIA. army intelligence, naval intelligence, USAF intelligence and all the rest are heavily penetrated. pl

*Someone asked about how the info was released, here is his very strategic response:

“I suspect that DIA deliberately leaked this info to make it more difficult for CIA to try to take him away from them. I would have done that.”

Here's the long and the short. Controversy swirls, and we have no real way of assessing the reality behind it all. All we can do is wait and see.


  1. We - the USA - is totally screwed. Who can we trust? Who can we depend on to tell us the unvarnished truth about the takeover of our critical intel services? Check out this article from TCT - is Blackrock - in conjunction with the CCP - running our country now? Is it even possible that these two entities aren't in bed with each other already?

    1. Yes--that article was quite a look into the deep state financial masters.

    2. @ Rich

      Let's not go too far. DIA must have some kind of power or leverage we don't know or understand if they were willing to pull a stunt like this. Further the fact that we are a week or so out from this breaking and mass firings/reassignments have not occurred at DIA (or some other horse whipping) says something about the cards DIA is holding. Who knows? If this defector is genuine (and the DIA would have to be fools not to figure that out well in advance), the DIA may be holding back some nuclear sized bombs on key regime leaders as a threat against reprisals.

      I can only see this as good news that there is at least one intel outfit that seems to be on Team America. And so far has the punch to stand up against the regime. Could there be a connection between DIA and branches of the military that share pro America ideas? Is it too far fetched to think that an Arizona audit that shows massive, coordinated election theft, particularly with implications for other states, in conjunction with evidence supplied by Jongwei that ties it all to foreign actors could call for a counter-coup against Zhou and the conspirators? Pretty extreme, I know, but things looked pretty dark before Inchon.


  2. Hard to figure Dong.

    Jumping onto a sinking ship?

    Or jumping off of a rapidly sinking ship onto one that is sinking slower?

  3. Moon of Alabama has a different take on this

    1. There are inherent problems with the story, the primary one being what I pointed out: the question of his access. Those problems demand some explanation. As I say, we don't have any way of being sure from this distance.

    2. Moon of Alabama cites search results from Baidu as evidence for his debunking. enough said.

      Mark A

      Mark A

    3. There ARE inherent problems with the story, but we have no way of knowing from out distance.

      It's also necessary to bear in mind that these matters can't be resolved with either/or judgments. Defectors often do what they do for personal and even venal motives, rather than ideological commitment to The American Way. As such they often exaggerate their supposed access and tailor information they believe will go down well with Americans--to please their hosts and get a better deal.

      OTOH, that does NOT mean that a defector who engages in that type of behavior is purveying totally false information. It all has to be sifted.

    4. @ all

      I just don't get who would be served by Jongwei being a fake or double agent etc... The US regime and CCP has no interest in propagating Jongwei's story as it directly damages them and creates tremendous pressures all would rather avoid. (It would be fascinating if the CCP intended Jongwei to be a double agent and he betrayed them by telling a very different and devastating story once safe w DIA).

      The only angle I can see that makes Jongwei into a fake is that he was intended to fool DIA, get them to put out this information, and then destroy their credibility by later exposing it as bunk. But the stories so far indicate that his info has checked out and it's absurd to think DIA would not double check like maniacs.

      So how does it make sense for him to be a fake? (Unless DIA already had this info elsewhere and just using Jongwei as vehicle for putting it out there without compromising the holy grail of sources and methods).


  4. Mark makes some excellent points that the alleged defector, based on his described duty position, would not be in a position to know all of the information that he is claimed to have provided. That of course is based on the assumption that Chinese intelligence is much better than our own and actually follows principals of compartmentalization and need to know, i.e. why would the spy catcher have access to info about biochem warfare programs and not have his account flagged if he went searching the database about them? (Only good explanation I could think of is if we did have a spy in WIV that he caught with these materials on him).

    The other important thing to remember is this guy is going to try to get the best treatment possible by exaggerating his access and knowledge. So assuming we really do have this guy and he is who he says he is, I hope his debreiefers have the good sense not to believe anything he tells them that they can't independently corroborate some other way.

    As to the question of DIA-CIA dick measuring/pissing contests, I think its important to remember that DOD actually controls ~80% of the annual intelligence budget. While most of that goes to agencies like NSA, NRO, NIMA, DIA still is a big player, with its Director basically the J-2 (senior staff officer for intelligence) to the Secretary of Defense. If they aren't willing to share this guy with the CIA or FBI, that is, as our Dementia patient in chief might say, a "big f'ing deal."

    1. EXCUSE ME--please don't tell me what my assumptions are unless I make such assumptions.

    2. My apologies. I thought that was an implicit assumption that you had made in your statement that a spycatcher would have no reason to know what was going on in a bioweapons lab. One I would share based on the duty description as described, but with potential holes I figured it would be worth exploring. I will work on my critical reading skills.