No announcement yet.

The war between Trump and the CIA

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    FOR MONTHS, THE CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton and went to the Washington Post to warn, in the week before the election, that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin,” adding that Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

    It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war, while Trump denounced it. Clinton clearly wanted a harder line than Obama took against the CIA’s long-standing foes in Moscow, while Trump wanted improved relations and greater cooperation. In general, Clinton defended and intended to extend the decadeslong international military order on which the CIA and Pentagon’s preeminence depends, while Trump — through a still-uncertain mix of instability and extremist conviction — posed a threat to it.

    To re-quote myself

    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Methinks there are more problems than Russia's influence. I get the "we need an external enemy" meme but with the CIA in revolt, The DHS hacking the State of Georgia and Centcoms politicization of ISIS reports, in reality US Intel is the problem here, not Russia.
    My greatest concern isn't some unsubstantiated Russian interference in US elections, it's the openly brazen verifiable interference of the CIA that is a serious concern.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.



    • #17
      I hope he takes the deep state to task starting in a week, and whatever foreign entities are part of this smear...

      "A senior intelligence agent told me the head of an Eastern European told him that his agent told him..."

      The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction

      I talked to Iraqi defectors in the 1990s who claimed to have plenty of information about WMDs and gossip about Hussein’s family affairs. It did not take long to work out that they were making it up when they produced convincing but uncheckable details

      Patrick Cockburn @indyworld Thursday 12 January 2017114 comments


      Click to follow
      The Independent Online
      The President-elect dismissed the compromising allegations made against him in the document, made public yesterday
      I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump’s alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief. The memo has all the hallmarks of such fabrications, which is too much detail – and that detail largely uncheckable – and too many names of important people placed there to impress the reader with the sheer quantity and quality of information.

      I was correspondent in Moscow in the 1980s and again during the first years in power of Vladimir Putin. Every so often, people would tell me intriguing facts about the dark doings of the Kremlin and its complicity in various crimes, such as the infamous apartment block bombings in 1999. But my heart used to sink when the informant claimed to know too much and did not see that what they were saying contained a fatal contradiction: Putin and his people were pictured as unscrupulous and violent people, but at the same time they were childishly incapable of keeping a secret damaging to themselves.

      The conclusions reached in the Trump dossier similarly claim to be based on multiple sources of information where, in the nature of things, they are unlikely to exist. The dossier cites at least seven of them. “Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, [said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least five years.”

      Kellyanne Conway and Anderson Cooper engage in heated exchange over the hacked Trump dossier
      I obviously failed as a correspondent when I was in Russia because it turns out that Moscow is choc-a-bloc with fellows in senior positions willing to blow the gaff on the Kremlin’s deep laid plans. A and B, despite achieving high rank, apparently remain touchingly naive and more than willing to make revelations that, if known, would get them imprisoned or shot in short order.

      Donald Trump is trying his hardest to distract you - don't let him
      Reading the papers on Trump brought back memories of talking to Iraqi defectors in the 1990s who claimed to have plenty of information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and gossip about his family affairs. It did not take long to work out that they were making it up when they produced convincing but uncheckable details about the doings of some of the more dangerous and suspicious people in the world, with whom the defectors claimed have had frank and revealing conversations.

      In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document. The former member of MI6, Christopher Steele, reportedly has a high reputation in espionage circles and was stationed in Moscow 20 years ago. The New York Times is unworried by his consequent inability to travel to Moscow “to study Mr Trump’s connections there”. This is where the famed MI6 tradecraft proved so useful. Steele is said to have “hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.”

      Trump calls leak ‘fake news’ and ‘something that Nazi Germany would have done’
      The word “contact” is a useful word for journalists because it could mean a highly-placed friend or, alternatively, it might refer to some lowly freelancer who is being paid to supply information. Having Russian speakers call up Russians in Russia is an astute move, though it presupposes that FSB does not monitor foreign phone calls to people with sensitive information.

      I suspect that those Iraqi defectors who used to tell me tall tales about WMD and the home life of Saddam Hussein would have dreamed up a more convincing story than this
      Last edited by troung; 14 Jan 17,, 04:13.
      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway


      • #18
        Did the CIA release anything during the election? Not that we are aware of. Arguably the only US security agency that did do something was the FBI when Comey announced they would examine the leaked (thanks to the Muscovite hack) Podesta emails as potentially incrimination to Clinton. The hack they have all agreed was of Muscovite origin; did they have a duty to brief it and the other information they found credible? Clearly not to have briefed it would leave them open. It is not their duty to decide what to do about it; that's for the politicians to judge. The only thing they had to decide was if their evidence was credible and if so whether or not to brief it.


        • #19

          "By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s."

          One would ask if they get a go from GA and for what.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.


          • #20
            Originally posted by snapper View Post
            Did the CIA release anything during the election? Not that we are aware of. Arguably the only US security agency that did do something was the FBI when Comey announced they would examine the leaked (thanks to the Muscovite hack) Podesta emails as potentially incrimination to Clinton. The hack they have all agreed was of Muscovite origin; did they have a duty to brief it and the other information they found credible? Clearly not to have briefed it would leave them open. It is not their duty to decide what to do about it; that's for the politicians to judge. The only thing they had to decide was if their evidence was credible and if so whether or not to brief it.
            "have all agreed" but without any conclusive evidence, laughable!


            • #21
              the reaction from the left is getting disgusting every day.


              • #22
                Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                "have all agreed" but without any conclusive evidence, laughable!
                To those who wish to close their eyes providing evidence is impossible. Why was Flynn in touch with the Muscovite Ambassador?


                • #23
                  Top-Level Intel Officers’ War Against Donald Trump Is Bad For The Country

                  Big Government

                  Top-Level Intel Officers’ War Against Donald Trump Is Bad For The Country

                  Top political appointees at intelligence agencies are engaged in a dangerous and discrediting full-scale war against Donald Trump.

                  Mollie Hemingway
                  By Mollie Hemingway
                  January 17, 2017

                  Dwight Eisenhower warned that if we didn’t stay vigilant, the military-industrial complex would start creeping into politics with pernicious motives all its own. The intelligence community’s war of leaks against Trump before he’s even taken office is just the latest questionably politicized action in the decades since Eisenhower’s farewell address. And it’s safe to say that the intelligence community pushing unproven and absurd allegations about a president-elect’s sexual perversions is probably way worse than anything Ike imagined.

                  In order to understand how we got to this perilous place and get a handle on what’s going on, it’s worth taking a closer look at the motives and allegations of political operatives in intelligence agencies, as well as the basic timeline of allegations of Russian electoral interference in the last few months. Far from discrediting Trump, it paints a worrisome portrait of the deep state gone rogue, desperate to stop a man who, whatever his considerable flaws, is an outsider to Washington.

                  Trump’s made emphatic promises to dramatically alter America’s foreign policy priorities and governmental operations. Given all the craziness, we have to ask ourselves: Does the intelligence community genuinely believe Trump is a real-live Manchurian candidate, or are they simply trying to protect their power and bureaucracy? And at this point, do they even know the difference?

                  ‘A Leakstorm Of Biblical Proportions’

                  Last week, Trump’s critics began warning him not to cast doubt on intelligence assessments or the motives of partisans in intelligence agencies.

                  According to The Hill:

                  New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.

                  “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

                  “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

                  You can watch it here.

                  Presidential historian Timothy Naftali said on a CNN panel that Trump should stay “silent” lest harmful information be released against him. A former CIA operative warned Trump off on CNN as well:


                  Former George. W. Bush speechwriter David Frum said it, too:


                  These political operatives were telling the truth about a terrifying reality about the power of intelligence agencies. They were admitting that intelligence agencies will use their position to retaliate for political reasons.

                  This is a very curious way to get back at someone for saying that your work product is the result of political considerations more than objective reality.

                  A Spearfish, a Hack, and a Failed Oppo Research Dump

                  Following Trump’s suprise win in the 2016 election, the Left has struggled to accept reality. They have bounced around from raw riots and protests, to rage at FBI Director James Comey for publicly revealing the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, to a campaign to undermine the Electoral College, to an utterly bizarre obsession with something they called “fake news.”

                  Democratic operatives and allies in the media also returned to a theme that they’d failed to make stick during the general election race, which was the allegation of Trump’s close ties to Russia. This is a fertile area for allegations if for no other reason than Trump is reluctant to express even the faintest of criticism of the Putin regime, no matter how egregious the matter at hand. From the perspective of his team, this is best understood in the context of his desire to work with Russia on shared goals such as the fighting of Islamist terrorism and in general to forge a realigned posture toward the region.

                  On October 7, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence officially blamed Russia for links to the hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s email, and the successful operation to get John Podesta to click on a link he shouldn’t have. Podesta clicking on a link he shouldn’t have resulted in embarrassing emails about the Clinton campaign being released through WikiLeaks. The hacked DNC information was also released on WikiLeaks. The official assessment reiterated that the shenanigans were typical behavior for the Russians and that there was little danger of the electoral system being compromised.

                  An opposition research dump happened on October 31 or thereabouts. Franklin Foer published a story in Slate headlined, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?” The story never quite explained what exactly was going on or why it was supposed to be disconcerting.

                  Julia Ioffe (then at Politico, now at The Atlantic, and a regular writer on Russia) uncritically accepted the report:


                  It turned out to be nothing. Like really nothing. Something like one computer trying to send marketing email to another. It was at this time that David Corn of Mother Jones also ran his report on the dossier that BuzzFeed published last week, a dossier that no one else ran with because it was so unverifiable. There were also two other stories published at the same time that dealt with anonymous leaks from intelligence officials about investigations into Trump and Russia.

                  The coordinated opposition dump didn’t work out. The New York Times and many other publications immediately debunked the server story, and the Corn report was taken as it was — a single source hit based on questionable information. But there was an attempt to resurrect the Russia talking point after the election. The general theme was that Russians were bad and in cahoots with Trump.

                  For instance, a couple of weeks after the election, the Washington Post‘s Craig Timberg put forth a serious allegation that “fake news” itself was a Russian operation designed to help Trump. From Columbia Journalism Review:

                  THE WASHINGTON POST’S November 24 report checked all the boxes: “The flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign,” it began. Not only had American voters been influenced by a deliberate misinformation operation, the story suggested, but the Kremlin was largely to blame. Journalists and Democrats still searching for answers after Donald Trump’s out-of-left-field win quickly launched the piece into an accelerating November jet stream of fake news paranoia.

                  It became apparent soon after that the Post had itself fallen for shoddy information. The story relied heavily on a report by PropOrNot, an anonymous internet group that bills itself as “Your Friendly Neighborhood Propaganda Identification Service, Since 2016!” While its study claimed to show how a deliberate Russian effort had unduly influenced American public opinion, it included in its calculations non-fake, left-wing sites like Naked Capitalism and Truthdig, among others.

                  An editor’s note was appended backing away from the report, some two weeks later.

                  In late December, the Washington Post‘s Juliet Eilperin and Adam Entous ran an even more incendiary story alleging that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electricity grid. A Forbes discussion of how this story promulgated falsehoods without journalistic due diligence began:

                  On Friday the Washington Post sparked a wave of fear when it ran the breathless headline “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, U.S. officials say.” The lead sentence offered “A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials” and continued “While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the penetration of the nation’s electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability.”

                  Yet, it turns out this narrative was false…

                  In fact, by January 2 the story had turned into:


                  As in, it turned out to be a lone laptop, unconnected to the grid, that had some random malware on it.

                  The Intel Community Gets Going

                  The overt participation in the Russia narrative by intelligence operatives was noticed on December 9, which was 10 days prior to the Electoral College vote, when high-ranking intelligence officers leaked information to the Washington Post about a report it had put together regarding Russia’s involvement with WikiLeaks. “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House,” read the headline. It credited the leak to “a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators.”

                  Prominent Democrats ran with it. Here’s Hillary Clinton on December 16:

                  “Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me,” she said.

                  Holy schneike! Democrats would be forgiven for believing that a “cyber attack against our electoral system” happened when Clinton herself said it and no one in the media pushed back that it was completely and utterly false. A CNN report accompanying the statement didn’t note that her statement was false — not even in the storied chyron used to allege or note falsehoods by Trump — but just treated it as a totally legitimate thing to say.

                  Presumably because this was all a rather obvious and coordinated effort to hype Russia’s effect on the election in pursuit of delegitimizing his stunning victory, Trump fought back. His transition team said, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.'”

                  In general, Trump has responded to the leak campaign by belittling the top partisans at intelligence agencies. They responded by putting out reports designed to convince people of serious Russian meddling when they didn’t just take their word in the initial leak to the Washington Post.

                  In late December, for instance, the Department of Homeland Security and FBI put out a 13-page report touted as definitive proof of Russian state involvement in the DNC server hack and spearphishing of John Podesta. It was remarkably paltry — vague and non-specific in a way that really didn’t help shape American opinion on the precise nature of Russia’s involvement.

                  Cyber warfare expert Jeffrey Carr said the report “adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible” for the campaign hacks. He said it merely listed every threat ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists. Former Air Force cyberwarfare officer Robert Lee said the report is of limited use to security professionals, in part because of poor organization and lack of crucial details.

                  Senior intelligence appointees tried again in early January, with a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It was also lacking in specifics.

                  Trump kept pushing back on what he likely continued to interpret as a rather clumsy and obvious attempt by Obama operatives to delegitimize his election.

                  The Intelligence Appointees Retaliate

                  As Trump kept responding to the paltry reports with dismissals and a few begrudging admissions of minor Russian involvement, critics warned him partisans at intelligence agencies would retaliate.

                  Last week came the big reveal. “Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him,” blared the headline from CNN. This one was a doozy. Well-placed sources were spilling the goods that the current administration’s top intelligence appointees had briefed Obama, Biden, and Trump all about that Mother Jones dossier. And it sounded really bad, as the headline indicates. “Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump” we learned. And this:

                  The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

                  We learned that the briefings were done by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers. The CNN report, which carried four bylines, said “it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations” in the 35-page dossier, an important point to remember.

                  Within an hour, BuzzFeed went and published the dossier that had been floating around. And it was just as explosive as CNN hinted. According to this report, the one that intelligence agencies were taking very seriously, a senior advisor to Trump and three of his colleagues had met with Kremlin operatives in Prague in late August or early September to undermine the Clinton campaign. And the Russians had a file of “kompromat” on Trump, including an amazing story about him renting a hotel room that the Obamas had used and paying prostitutes to urinate on the bed.

                  Further reports on the ex-spy make him sound like a highly partisan nutcase, for what it’s worth. And that spy was hired by a Democratic opposition research firm called Fusion GPS, which received attention in 2012 for its dumpster diving in pursuit of damaging information on Republican donors that President Barack Obama had personally called out.

                  But with the BuzzFeed publication, the story deflated. That’s because people could see for themselves how ridiculous, how preposterous, and how immediately debunkable some of the most important claims were. For instance, it turned out that Michael Cohen, the lawyer alleged to have gone to Prague for a clandestine meeting with Kremlin operatives, had never been to Prague. In fact, no media organization has been able to confirm a single, solitary claim made in the dossier that BuzzFeed published.

                  The revelation of how fever-dreamed and sophomoric the dossier was, at least in major parts, cast doubt on the wisdom of the top political brass at intelligence agencies, much less their propriety and ability to handle information with any discretion. Obviously they were leaking like sieves in an ongoing war against the president-elect. BuzzFeed pulled the curtain back, showing how the partisan appointees at political agencies — to be clear, not the intelligence officers who do good work — use the media to punish or destroy their political enemies or advance a political agenda. It’s really not such a great look!

                  How To Frame A Phone Call

                  The big reveal was the dossier operation. But it kept going. On Friday, the Washington Post‘s David Ignatius dropped what many in the media decided was a bombshell about Trump’s choice for national security adviser Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn:

                  According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

                  I had trouble finding record of David Ignatius raising concerns of Logan Act violations when members of the Barack Obama transition team, up to and including the president-elect and vice-president elect themselves, were calling countless foreign leaders and dignitaries in preparation of the peaceful transition of power from President George W. Bush to President Barack Obama.

                  Even before he was elected president in 2008, Obama’s advisors reached out to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to notify him they’d be changing the United States’ approach to the country. Perhaps Ignatius did raise Logan Act violation concerns, though I suspect he’s far too serious of a person to make such a preposterous claim at any other time. Even mentioning the Logan Act is utterly bizarre and downright silly here, since it’s not been enforced since it was passed in 1799 and is widely considered to be unconstitutional.

                  There are a thousand reasons why members of the Trump transition would be calling Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December, from condolences for recent tragedies hitting the nation, to discussions of a peace conference regarding Syria that is take place just a few days after inauguration.

                  In fact, there are so many non-nefarious reasons why Flynn might be talking to Kislyak at this time, that the only interesting thing about this story becomes “a senior U.S. government official” trying to plant the idea that the call had to do with an effort to undermine sanctions when, if that senior U.S. government official had any evidence whatsoever that the call was about that, one could safely assume he’d lead with that information.

                  Surveilling the phone calls of Russian ambassadors is beyond expected. Given his background in intelligence, Flynn would know that. So we’re left with very little other than yet another data point that our top levels of the intelligence agencies are leaking information to friendly journalists in an attempt to discredit the incoming administration. CIA 101, basically.

                  But it is somewhat surprising that more journalists aren’t just kind of acknowledging that, no? Instead we got headlines such as:

                  NBC News: “White House: We Didn’t Coordinate Flynn Call to Russian Ambassador”
                  CNN: “Sen. Coons: Flynn call with Russia ‘very suspicious'”

                  Journalists and anti-Trump political operatives on Twitter suggested that these allegations were explosive:




                  Incidentally, Trump officials responded to the story by saying that while sanctions weren’t discussed, other things were, such as the assassination of a Russian ambassador by a terrorist in Ankara, the downing of a Russian plane carrying a choir to Syria, the beginning of plans for a Trump-Putin conversation, and an invitation for a Trump administration official to visit Kazakhstan shortly after the inauguration.

                  Which, you know, actually makes sense. Was the framing of sanction talk provided by the high-ranking intelligence officer in order to support a false narrative as part of a political campaign of delegitimization? Was it something more? Do our media care?

                  It would be one thing if this were the only anti-Trump leak, presented in just-so fashion, to emanate from the political appointees at intelligence agencies. It’s more like the 100th. It increasingly seems like part of a campaign on the part of Democratic political operatives inside and outside the administration.


                  Trump Knows Top Brass Are Leaking

                  In his press conference last week, a reporter asked Trump, “But why did you spend weeks undermining U.S. intelligence community before simply getting the facts and then making a public statement?”

                  Trump responded by talking about how he knows how political some intelligence officials are and also how bad they are at their main job of keeping secrets. Here’s what he said:

                  Well, I think it’s pretty sad when intelligence reports get leaked out to the press. I think it’s pretty sad. First of all, it’s illegal. You know, these are — these are classified and certified meetings and reports.

                  I’ll tell you what does happen. I have many meetings with intelligence. And every time I meet, people are reading about it. Somebody’s leaking it out. So, there’s — maybe it’s my office. Maybe in my office because I have a lot of people, a lot of great people. Maybe it’s them. And what I did is I said I won’t tell anybody. I’m going to have a meeting and I won’t tell anybody about my meeting with intelligence.

                  And what happened is I had my meeting. Nobody knew, not even Rhona, my executive assistant for years, she didn’t know — I didn’t tell her. Nobody knew. The meeting was had, the meeting was over, they left. And immediately the word got out that I had a meeting.

                  So, I don’t want that — I don’t want that. It’s very unfair to the country. It’s very unfair to our country; what’s happened.

                  Yes, our president-elect ran a successful sting operation to learn where leaks were coming from. This wasn’t even big news in America, though it did attract notice at foreign media outlets.

                  This weekend, Trump responded to CIA Director John Brennan’s emotional interview against Trump on Fox News Sunday by reminding Brennan of various intelligence failures during the Obama administration and asking if he was “the leaker of Fake News.”

                  Clapper and Brennan are high-profile political opponents of Trump. Both have denied being leakers. Technically, Clapper said he does “not believe the leaks came from within the IC,” meaning “intelligence community.” Then again, knowledgeable observers say that at least one of these two men appears credited or uncredited in most stories related to the leaks.

                  Clapper is also known for lying to Congress about whether he was spying on them and lying under oath about whether intelligence agencies were collecting any kind of data on hundreds of millions of Americans. He said they weren’t. They were. Here’s Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon on Clapper’s “deception spree” while serving as a top Obama official in intelligence agencies.

                  The bottom line is that these leaks are almost certainly coming from a very small pool of Obama political appointees at intelligence agencies.

                  Our Media Are Whipping People Into Frenzies About Trump

                  On December 12, President Obama went on “The Daily Show” with Trevor Noah and said of the Russian efforts, “None of this should be a big surprise. This was reported on before the election. I don’t think there was any doubt among anybody in the media or among members of Congress as to who was being advantaged or disadvantaged by the political gossip that was being put out in drip-drip-drip fashion leading up to the election.”

                  He also said, “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union. What they did here — hacking some emails and releasing them — is not a particularly fancy brand of espionage or propaganda. We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of and we’re confident we can guard against. But Trevor, I think what everybody has to reflect on is what is it about our political eco-system, what is it about the state of our democracy where the leaks of what were frankly not-very-interesting emails that didn’t have any explosive information in them, ended up being an obsession. And the fact that the Russians were doing this was not an obsession.”

                  Heck, on August 2, President Obama said, “I don’t think that [the hacking] wildly swings what is a tough difficult relationship that we have with Russia right now.” Unfortunately, President Obama’s political appointees in intelligence agencies seem to be following different orders about how to litigate the issue domestically.

                  The Russia information operation, in which different parts are played by high-ranking Democrats inside and outside intelligence agencies with the help of a compliant media, has caused something approaching hysteria. There have been so many headlines and so many tweets and so many minutes spent discussing Russia that by late December, more than half of Democrats believed “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President.”

                  A majority of Democrats believe that Russia stole the election for Donald Trump. This is crazier than the craziest heights of birtherism.

                  I repeat, a majority of Democrats believe that Russia stole the election for Donald Trump. This is crazier than the craziest heights of birtherism. Yet it’s being aided by major media and high levels of political operatives. It’s classic “stray voltage” — the Obama method summed up as “Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness.”

                  On the one hand, this effort at delegitimization of Trump has been successful in some regard. The Left is currently in stage 12 of an unending cycle of refusing to deal with the reality that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States.

                  But the price in this case was to further tarnish the credibility of intelligence agencies, already suffering from a history of politicizing information. “Don’t disparage the integrity of the intelligence agency or they will unethically leak info and destroy you!” is a message that doesn’t necessarily hurt Trump, but it does hurt the intelligence agencies.

                  The campaign in which the media are too compliant also can hurt the media’s efforts to hold Trump accountable because it causes people who aren’t already histrionic about the president-elect to tune out a media establishment they see as overly compliant in pushing partisan political narratives.

                  Also, oddly enough, it could serve to scandal-proof Trump. Pushing outlandish suggestions that are proven false makes it more difficult to convince the American public of any real threats or scandals that could arise.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway


                  • #24
                    Gee, Mollie, that is one huge load of caca you are pedaling.


                    • #25
                      Intelligence sharing is a two way street. if the israelis clam up why will the US be as forthcoming with Israel.

                      This isn't useful advice.

                      There is way too much FUD going on.


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                        Four years of listening to this is like listening to a 10 year old tell me why he doesn't have to do his homework... Ugh!
                        I call this Trump's charm. EVERYBODY can understand where he's coming from. He connects well with the common man. My first impression of Trump at the debates.

                        The media made fun of Bush's language skills too. Those more circumspect paid attention to what he did ; )
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 17,, 18:08.


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Intelligence sharing is a two way street. if the israelis clam up why will the US be as forthcoming with Israel.

                          This isn't useful advice.

                          There is way too much FUD going on.
                          The headline is definitive, the actual content is more 'nuanced'.
                          The former US intelligence official’s tenure in top posts ran from 1999-2009. He has been a prominent Trump critic, despite serving mainly under a Republican president.

                          He responded to Bergman’s report and similar reports regarding British Intelligence being concerned about sharing with the US, saying, “I don’t share those concerns. I saw the reporting. I don’t think, even looking at the dynamics we are talking about, I don’t think the Americans would do it. It is still America’s CIA.”

                          Regarding US-Israeli intelligence cooperation in general, he said that Trump’s pick for CIA director, Mike Pompeo, should see to it that one of his first visits is to Israel.

                          Hayden advised Pompeo to “reinforce the already rich relations between Israeli and American intelligence.”
                          His comments of course have to be viewed through the lens of his active participation in attempting to undermine Trump since his nomination

                          Retired four-star General Michael Hayden was arguably one of the most prominent critics of Donald Trump’s run for president. The former NSA and CIA director was among 50 national security officials who signed a letter in September warning that Donald Trump was a “risk” to the country’s national security.

                          Now that the once-unlikely billionaire is our newest president-elect, the risk has become even realer to Hayden.

                          “Look, I think it’s fair to say that he’s become the president-elect by showing anger, by being accusatory, frankly, not being all that fact-based and scapegoating real and imagined enemies,” Hayden said. “None of that fits into the intelligence picture – that’s very alien to the way intelligence comes at an issue. And unless he has a conversation with what I call the fact-based, inductive, world-as-it-is people and they have a meaningful dialogue, I fear he’s going to continue to act on this other set of beliefs and that’s going to be very bad for America and for the world.”
                          Last edited by Parihaka; 18 Jan 17,, 20:25.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.



                          • #28
                            Here's a guy you lead me to believe had an active role in undermining Trump, who is no longer in office but his parting shot or one of them is don't trust this administration which he then denies....

                            He is not very credible. If this kind of shit is happening there is some clean up to do. I hope Trump is the right person to do it. Because things are looking rotten.

                            I stand by my first comment.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 17,, 21:02.


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                              Here's a guy you lead me to believe had an active role in undermining Trump, who is no longer in office but his parting shot or one of them is don't trust this administration which he then denies....

                              He is not very credible. If this kind of shit is happening there is some clean up to do. I hope Trump is the right person to do it. Because things are looking rotten.

                              I stand by my first comment.
                              We're in agreement. :-) I posted the second article in response to the first report last week, it's simply more disinformation from a 'never Trumper'.
                              The CIA has long since moved past its mandate. Like the Dems, it believes Trump and the new political conservative movements as enemies to the 'US', the 'US' being defined as the way they in the establishment wants it.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.



                              • #30
                                Well how the organisation behaves is set by the head. There is a new head. So its a given some services cannot be above politics so put your guy in and no more doubts.

                                On balance those NIE's they put out have been used to good effect here with Iran. Nooobody dared challenge them : D D

                                The Israelis have a 101 other things to worry about. This one has to be real low on the list.

                                It amazes me the amount of coverage this guy gets before he's even inaugurated. It makes me think the only reason he won is because he hogged the press more thoroughly than his opponent. Baited the media very well. Does not matter if its negative as long as somebody is talking about you and preferably many. It's working. I hear how corrupt he is and how he is going to sell off America to the Russians.
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jan 17,, 22:34.