A Peek Behind the Curtain?

David J. Rush, 49, a senior CIA executive was arrested on May 19, a day after FBI agents searched his home in suburban Washington, DC. Charges were filed against Rush in Federal Court on May 20.

On May 27, a week after the court filings, the FBI and the CIA released a joint statement “explaining” the raid and arrest. The local DC media and the national media circulated the story on May 27 and 28. The interim week gave the CIA plenty of opportunity to carefully construct a credible account. 

Nonetheless, what emerged was wildly bizarre. 

First, this 17-year veteran of the CIA possessed 303 one-kilogram solid gold bars, totaling nearly 700 pounds and worth $40,000,000, depending on the exchange rate. In addition, he had $2,000,000 in cash, and 30-plus luxury watches, including many coveted Rolexes, discovered in his storage area.

Second, the announced charges included lying to the CIA about his educational and military records and time-card fraud, namely fraudulently claiming 744 hours of benefits totaling around $77,000. While acknowledging his possessing vast sums of booty, the federal filing claimed that the legitimacy of his possession of the assets was still undetermined.

Subsequently, a Federal prosecutor added that Rush’s deception extended to posing as a doctor, a lie that escaped CIA security checkers? 

The august New York Times noted that the booty collected by Rush originated with the CIA, but expressed no alarm that he was not cited for his possession of a massive horde of government assets. The writers did not seem terribly curious about how a government employee could acquire such a bounty.

Indeed, the lack of media curiosity was… curious. Normally, a juicy story like the checking out of well over $40,000,000 of taxpayer wealth would dominate the news cycle; but, strangely, Rush’s mystery largely disappeared. A casual search of “David Rush” produced little mainstream interest until June 3, nearly a week after the initial flurry. NBC News-- which seems to retain the most interest in the case-- noted that the allegedly lyin’-thievin’ CIA official had been appointed as CIA liaison to a super-secret Pentagon submarine program by the number-two official at the War Department, establishing his importance in the CIA hierarchy.

As interest resurfaces this week, we are told by the courts that Rush must remain in jail, pretrial, because he is a “master manipulator” and a flight risk. Allegedly, he is being kept in solitary confinement. We are also told-- again by the inquisitive NBC team-- that “several senior officials” have been “put on administrative leave” over the Rush case.

Meanwhile, the CIA was busy throwing sand in the public’s eyes. In the aftermath of the federal court filings, the New York Post cites former CIA officer R.M. Gerecht, who scoffs at the possible use of the gold as bribery, payoff, or influence-peddling by the CIA: “People don’t realize how heavy money is. It was regularly a problem for large payments – particularly if you’re trying to do it clandestinely. You could just weigh yourself down with cash. Gold – you’d need mules…” Diamonds, he suggests, are far better because they are lighter.

Sure. That’s why convicted former Senator Menendez received his ill-begotten bribes in gold bars?

Anticipating that citizens might be wondering how anyone could so easily check out nearly a third of a ton of gold bars from the CIA’s supervision, Gerecht reminds us: “It’s not British banking. You don’t have multiple lines of people checking things. The agency is a system that operates largely on trust.” Is he referring to an agency that frequently administers polygraphs to its employees? Is he referring to the agency that has an entire branch of counterintelligence devoted to spying on its spies?

Before curiosity could take hold on where Rush’s booty might have been destined, the CIA-friendly Washington Post jumped into the breach. Throwing Rush under the bus, WaPo contended that he had concocted a fake program, duping colleagues and amassing the hoard for a secret “continuity of government” program to keep the government functioning if disaster strikes. How gold bars, cash, and Rolex watches create continuity is not explained in any satisfactory manner. 

Like Captain Louis Renault in the movie Casablanca, members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are “shocked, shocked that chicanery is going on in the CIA.” The shocking thing is that their “oversight” is so lacking.

To anyone familiar with the actual history of the CIA-- and not the fictional, obsequious CBS TV fantasy-- this is a rare opportunity to dig into its current operation. With a week passing between the arrest and the news release, and with another week afforded the CIA by a compliant, interest-deficient media, the CIA has had plenty of time to create a less provocative narrative, a credible back story. Instead, we have a CIA humiliation.

What do we know? And what can we surmise?

We know that David J. Rush was a bagman for the CIA. That is, he was trusted enough in a highly compartmentalized agency to deliver “incentives” to agents, collaborators, clients, and government officials. A CIA analyst, a field agent, or a low-level manager cannot casually walk into the CIA’s vaults, sign a card, and leave with tens of millions of dollars of gold bullion. That is not possible. The talking heads of the media know this, but they are remarkably silent.

We know that the CIA has an elaborate, thorough security system that researches potential recruits to employ, checks on its employees’ spending habits and lifestyles, and subjects its employees at all levels to frequent polygraphs. The agency prides itself in this diligence. The likelihood that Roth’s multiple, many-faceted lies escaped their scrutiny is virtually nil. That suggests that his background was purposefully overlooked, was an operational ruse, a setup, or some other spook deception. Again, we have a tongue-tied commentariat.

We know that the CIA distractions willingly repeated by the friendly media are absurd and simply meant to thwart speculation on what Rush-- the bagman-- intended to do with the gold, cash, and watches. 

The idea that the CIA-- known to acquire banks and its own commercial airlines-- would be reluctant or unable to deliver hefty, bulky bars of gold to “persuade” or “influence” others is ludicrous. Who needs mules when you own speedboats, airplanes, and helicopters? Gold bars are easily convertible everywhere. The idea that diamonds-- tradeable in limited, specialized markets-- would be preferable for CIA use is silly. The CIA is the world’s greatest influencer-- they find a way.

The story that the New York Times and WaPo are peddling is hilarious. A “continuity of government” program-- a contingency plan meant to secure governance in the face of nuclear war, a natural catastrophe, etc.-- would never be a “black box” project outside of the approval of the top CIA leadership or funded by gold bullion. There are ample contractors, trusted by the CIA and happily funded by secret contracts, who are paid conventionally, and not with gold bars or watches. Could Roth sell his bogus program to his bosses?

While we may never know, it is not unreasonable to assume that $40,000,000 in gold bullion found with Roth is coup money. That is to say, the CIA accountants would not allocate that much money to a lesser project like securing a UN vote, locating a Marxist rebel, or setting up oppositional media. Those goals could be achieved with much less money. But $40,000,000 would get much more: a shot at regime change, betraying leaders, buying military chiefs, establishing alternate unions and political parties, etc. Roth was up to something big with bullion. The Rolexes are for something small like clearing customs or small-scale smuggling. 

In this case, something went awry with an active CIA program.

Fascinating questions linger. Why did the CIA involve the FBI-- an often-rival agency-- in the Roth affair? Other potentially embarrassing foul-ups have been ably handled and disposed of quietly without interagency engagement. Could the clumsy handling of this matter reflect underlying policy differences or rivalries that exploded in exposing and sacrificing Roth?

Given our subservient capitalist media, we may never know…

Greg Godels

zzsblogml@gmail.com