Top intel officials reject Trump view on Russia hacks - Polidicks

[quote]Washington (CNN)Lawmakers and senior US intelligence officials drew a line in the sand for Donald Trump on Thursday, presenting a united front on their conclusion that Russia is a major threat to the United States and was behind election hacking -- a conclusion the President-elect has refused to accept.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/russian-hacking-hearing-senate-republicans/index.html[/url]

I bet he'd have an easier time understanding if the cunt would at least go to his intel briefings. We're 3 weeks from the Inauguration and he's still riding the high of his win, like come on

Well, the report they put out to the public had some massive glaring holes in it. These holes lead me to believe that they want to blame Russia for the hacks of DNC and Podesta's emails. But that they had no evidence. Like one of the shells is a publicly available shell that anyone can get. [url]https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/01/election-hack-faq/[/url]

[QUOTE=Kigen;51627101]Well, the report they put out to the public had some massive glaring holes in it. These holes lead me to believe that they want to blame Russia for the hacks of DNC and Podesta's emails. But that they had no evidence. Like one of the shells is a publicly available shell that anyone can get. [url]https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/01/election-hack-faq/[/url][/QUOTE] It's highly likely that the full report includes classified material, such as information relating to informants. While they would not release that to the public, the president would be privy to it. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether [I]you[/I] believe it's true, only that the entire unified field of nonpartisan national intelligence agencies do. The president actively disregarding their findings on this, or any other matter, puts the country at risk.

-snip-

There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] How so?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] Wow. You really gotta stretch far for your Trump apologetics these days, huh?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] the intelligence is exactly that, presenting what it believes to be facts. they have no power to throw anyone under the bus, which is why no one has yet, but they can provide the information to do so, and if a court were to actively ignore factual evidence, well, i don't have to tell you what happens.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] And two of those three branches absolutely rely on the intel community to function. Our next executive [i]isnt[/i].

[QUOTE=Apache249;51627285]How so?[/QUOTE] There transparently trying to sabotage Trump's rapprochement with Vladimir Putin (and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) by embracing a baseless report that Russia tried to "interfere" with the election.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] advising the president?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297]There transparently trying to sabotage Trump's rapprochement with Vladimir Putin (and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) by embracing a baseless report that Russia tried to "interfere" with the election.[/QUOTE] Uh I doubt that anybody had any plans for a bogus anything charge, never mind treason, to be laid at Trump's door. If he's going to be impeached, he'll fuck something up on his own easily enough. Not that it'll make any difference because I'd rather four years of Trump than any years of Mike Pence.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297]There transparently trying to sabotage Trump's rapprochement with Vladimir Putin (and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) by embracing a baseless report that Russia tried to "interfere" with the election.[/QUOTE] Nah they're just doing their jobs.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297]There transparently trying to sabotage Trump's rapprochement with Vladimir Putin (and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) [/QUOTE] Good lord, the paranoia. [QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297]by embracing a baseless report that Russia tried to "interfere" with the election.[/QUOTE] Thank you for your well-reasoned points that it's baseless. I'm sure your vast network of intelligence information was a key point in your coming to this conclusion. Why on earth would the intelligence community basically as a whole embrace this if it wasn't true? You'd think if it wasn't there'd be serious disagreement. In fact, I'd bet the intelligence community tends to be more Trump sympathetic than Hillary sympathetic.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297](and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) [/QUOTE] What are you smoking and where can I get some

[QUOTE=Lambeth;51627317]Nah they're just [B]trying to keep[/B] their jobs.[/QUOTE] Fixed. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51627320]Thank you for your well-reasoned points that it's baseless. I'm sure your vast network of intelligence information was a key point in your coming to this conclusion.[/QUOTE] It all comes down to who you trust: Do you trust Julian Assange? A man who risked more than you or I could understand to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power? Or do you trust the CIA? A spy agency whose history of shady shit goes back to it's founding and who have a very obvious agenda here? What is it about the spies' evidence that has convinced you? Have they exposed anything truly disturbing beyond "they influenced the election through propaganda" ([B]literally everyone else[/B] does)or "they hacked some emails". (which they have produced zero real evidence for) Or are you just assuming that if something's too good to be true for Trump (like winning the election fairly) it probably is and will cling to anything that will put an asterisk next to his presidency. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51627320][B]Why on earth would the intelligence community basically as a whole embrace this if it wasn't true?[/B] You'd think if it wasn't there'd be serious disagreement.[/QUOTE] Why would they not? I really don't feel like explaining why they have a vested interest in preventing a Trump Presidency, it would require explaining a whole lot of historical and geopolitical shit. Just watch Oliver Stone's documentary. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51627320]In fact, [B]I'd bet the intelligence community tends to be more Trump sympathetic than Hillary sympathetic.[/B][/QUOTE] What do you base that on? Some sectors might be, mostly involved with counter-terrorism, but the CIA definitely favors Clinton.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51627392]What are you smoking and where can I get some[/QUOTE] You mean to say that you'd like to smoke some /pol/? :quagmire:

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627268]There are 3 branches of the American Government: Judicial, Legislative and Executive. The "intelligence community" isn't a 4th, yet it is very much acting like one right now.[/QUOTE] Sounds like something coming straight off /r/The_Donald or something

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627297]There transparently trying to sabotage Trump's rapprochement with Vladimir Putin (and possibly laying the groundwork for some bogus treason charge) by embracing a baseless report that Russia tried to "interfere" with the election.[/QUOTE] Who do you think made the report? [QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398] Do you trust Julian Assange? A man who risked more than you or I could understand to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power? Or do you trust the CIA? A spy agency whose history of shady shit goes back to it's founding and who have a very obvious agenda here?[/QUOTE] Both have lied in the past so I'm gonna go with the CIA (and also all the other agencies and private cybersecurity firms that reached the same conclusions)

At this point, whatever intelligence meetings Trump did sit on, I'm imagining him with his ears plugged repeating "I'm not listening" when everyone else agrees that Russia did some shit.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]Do you trust Julian Assange? A man who risked more than you or I could understand to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power? Or do you trust the CIA? A spy agency whose history of shady shit goes back to it's founding and who have a very obvious agenda here?[/QUOTE] I don't trust climate change scientists either because it's their job to say there's climate change

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]It all comes down to who you trust: Do you trust Julian Assange? A man who risked more than you or I could understand to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power? Or do you trust the CIA? A spy agency whose history of shady shit goes back to it's founding and who have a very obvious agenda here? What is it about the spies' evidence that has convinced you? Have they exposed anything truly disturbing beyond "they influenced the election through propaganda" ([B]literally everyone else[/B] does)or "they hacked some emails". (which they have produced zero real evidence for) Or are you just assuming that if something's too good to be true for Trump (like winning the election fairly) it probably is and will cling to anything that will put an asterisk next to his presidency.[/QUOTE] Well luckily, whether Trump won the election fairly doesn't hinge on whether the DNC emails were hacked by Russia, so that's a non-issue. I don't trust either of them. Assange risking his life to expose things doesn't make him infallible or perfectly honest and pure, and US intelligence agencies doing bad shit doesn't mean they're purely bad or wrong (if they were wrong too often, they'd likely not exist). But it's not just the government: unaffiliated cybersecurity firms have determined that the hack bears hallmarks of Russian intrusion. So it's basically down to assuming these people are all working unanimously toward the same agenda, or basically one guy, Julian Assange, is either incorrect or not entirely honest. But here's the thing: Even if they [I]did[/I] do it, I don't expect us to impeach or recall Trump because of it. They didn't do anything that disqualifies him from being President, so it's not about Trump. Of course every side uses propaganda in every election. The problem is if we assume both sides probably have similar amounts of incriminating dirt, and we let foreign governments pick and choose which information gets released, we can basically look forward to "the most pro-Russian candidate 20XX" indefinitely. That's not something we should stand for. [QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]Why would they not? I really don't feel like explaining why they have a vested interest in preventing a Trump Presidency, it would require explaining a whole lot of historical and geopolitical shit. Just watch Oliver Stone's documentary.[/QUOTE] "I don't feel like making an argument." [QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]What do you base that on? Some sectors might be, mostly involved with counter-terrorism, but the CIA definitely favors Clinton.[/QUOTE] Living in the DC area and knowing members of the intelligence community. To be fair, that's not exactly a scientific sample, but what are you basing it on?

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]Fixed.[/QUOTE] What is Trump going to purge the CIA and FBI of people who disagree with him?

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51627495]I don't trust climate change scientists either because it's their job to say there's climate change[/QUOTE] Right? That's the same reason I don't trust the police. How else are they gonna get paid unless they say there's crime? Checkmate.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51627320]Good lord, the paranoia. [/QUOTE] Well, they did it for the iraq war. They did it a ton to other countries. Not exactly organizations with the best track records of being trustworthy and honest. I think it's silly to assume they are doing one particular thing but if you think they have any reason to be honest with anyone at this point you're fooling yourself. Not that trump has any reason either. I hate modern politics.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;51627714]Well, they did it for the iraq war. They did it a ton to other countries. Not exactly organizations with the best track records of being trustworthy and honest. I think it's silly to assume they are doing one particular thing but if you think they have any reason to be honest with anyone at this point you're fooling yourself. Not that trump has any reason either. I hate modern politics.[/QUOTE] No, not them being wrong or lying. That's perfectly reasonable. But I think that attempting to get the president convicted of treason is a massive stretch even for them. Particularly given that even if we grant that absolutely everything they've said is true, it doesn't add up to even close to Trump treason. It's not even groundwork for treason unless you believe something even more radical: that Trump was working with Russia to subvert the election or something. Which I think is completely pointless (Russia has no reason to involve the candidate they want in their subversion) and probably unproveable without completely fabricated information, which would probably fall apart under enough scrutiny even if the CIA is good at what they do.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]Do you trust Julian Assange? A man who risked more than you or I could understand to expose wrongdoing at the highest levels of power?[/QUOTE] If Julian Assange said a single word that was actually indicative of his source's identity, his whole creation would immediately die. There is no way he would ever confirm a question about who his source was. Further, Assange denies that the Russian government [I]gave them the leaks[/I], whereas the US Intelligence is concerned with [I]who took them[/I] in the first place. .Isak. summed up a lot of the evidence that's publicly available in another thread: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1547000&p=51601405&viewfull=1#post51601405[/url] [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1547000&p=51601484&viewfull=1#post51601484[/url] I wish they'd use these more technical points more, instead of trying to push the [I]"all of us agree so it must be true"[/I] argument.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51628394]Further, Assange denies that the Russian government [I]gave them the leaks[/I], whereas the US Intelligence is concerned with [I]who took them[/I] in the first place.[/QUOTE] Right. Assange may absolutely be telling the truth that his source was not Russian government affiliated, [I]as far as he knows[/I].

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51627398]Fixed. .[/QUOTE] Wait im on phone so i cant answer entire thing but They trying to keep their jobs By announcing their unified support of an incredibly controversial claim and going against the grain of the confirmed next president Sometimes i wonder about you guys