Cold War submarine lore. I can't go into all of it here, but I can tell you about one bit of that lore: the Crazy Ivan.
Modern submarines have incredible passive sonar arrays. They can hear everything in the ocean for hundreds of miles around. Everything.
Everything except something directly behind them. Behind a submarine is a big propeller or “screw.” It turns. It pushes water abaft. The noise and the motion combine to prevent sound waves from reaching the sensors. That shaded zone is the baffle area.
[caption width="450” align="aligncenter”] Photobucket. Uploaded by: cbleyte[/caption]To check for enemy submarines that might be following directly behind you, you have to turn the ship to a new course. And you have to do it fast. If you turn too slowly, the enemy can respond with his own change in course and speed to stay inside your baffle zone. But if you're traveling too fast and you turn too hard, you risk colliding with your enemy. That's bad for both boats.
Old submariners had a story. Russian submarine captains traveling at high speed were under orders to clear baffles with a hard rudder. Dangerous as hell. No time to evade. American submarines called this risky maneuver “the Crazy Ivan.”
The phrase “Crazy Ivan” hadn't crossed my mind since 1994. That's when I left the submarine service. December 1994. But “Crazy Ivan” was the first thing I thought of when I read this story on The Gateway Pundit today:
Trump is clearing his baffles.
The Russian hacker story broke when, do you remember?
October. The media, in collusion with Obama's FBI, CIA, DOJ, and Homeland Security leaked stories of a massive Russian conspiracy to throw the election to Trump. It was a topic in the last debate between Trump and Clinton you'll recall.
The Russian story was a cover for Comey's letter to Congress. The letter stating he'd reopened his investigation of Hillary's illegal servers. Hillary needed cover. The Deep State provided.
If the story had worked, if Clinton had won, you'd have never heard another word about Russian hackers. The “evidence” would have been swept into the dustbin of history.
But the narrative failed. Trump won. And people who believed the Russian hacker story kept it alive. People who weren't privy the story's trumped-up origins. The stories in October were probably bullshit. But the geniuses at the CIA covered the bullshit with just enough molasses to hide the smell. The media bit. And the stories only grew.
On January 19, Michael Schmidt of the New York Times wrote a story about US government wiretaps. Those wiretaps, he claimed, implicated Trump lieutenants in the (phony) Russian hacker fiction. The story was timed to embarrass and discredit our new president.
Look for yourself. Here's the change history of that article. In every version of the headline, the word “wiretap” appears.
Now, Michael Schmidt seems to claim he never wrote that story, that the New York Times never published it. The New York Times wants you to believe the headline you just read never happened.
Michael Schmidt would tell such an obvious lie for only one reason: panic.
Schmidt's panicking. He's panicking because Trump pulled a Crazy Ivan on his ass. Schmidt wasn't ready for that. Politicians don't pull Crazy Ivans. Politicians make safe turns to clear baffles. But Trump ain't no politician.
When Trump tweeted about Obama wiretapping Trump Tower, he really just fed the media's lies right back to them. Molasses and all. The media can't deny Trump's allegations without denying their own reporting on the Russian hack. Reporting they've done every day since mid-October. Breitbart has more evidence that the media created the Obama wiretap narrative.
That headline, “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides,” was most assuredly _not _a right-wing production, and it’s not even slightly ambiguous about the existence of wiretapping. Jeff Dunetz at The Lid couldn’t help noticing that the _exact same _reporter who wrote that _New York Times _piece in January is now claiming, right in his headlines, that Trump has “no evidence” of the very same wiretaps he reported as established fact just two months ago.
If Trump's wrong, then there is no evidence of collaboration with Russia. None. Nowhere. Never was. The media is exposed as a bunch of horrible liars.
But if Trump is right, Obama is going to prison.
As Scott Adams points out, Trump often gives himself two ways to win and no way to lose.
Two Ways to Win: We often see Trump choose strategies that have two ways to win and no way to lose. That’s the best risk management of all. For example, when Trump warned that Iran should release American prisoners before he gets elected, he created two ways to win and no way to lose. If the prisoners were released (and they were), Trump could claim his threat was effective. (He did.) If Iran kept the prisoners, Trump could say the United States needs a bad-ass President like him to deal with Iran.
He's done it again.
Pass the popcorn. Then watch our friend Ed Martin dig into this subject on Fox Business News. Watch the latest video at &amp;lt;a href="https://video.foxbusiness.com”&amp;gt;video.foxbusiness.com&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;