Trump and Russia

[K-9]

 

DR does not believe Russia did this. Treatise forthcoming.

 

 

They did not.

 

 

 

They did, but those "findings" were not the summary of a consensus within the IC. They were anything but, actually.

 

 

 

Let's be grown ups and at least acknowledge that the US, over the past 16 years, has been a far more destabilizing force in the world than the Russians. And while Russia has killed it's share of journalists, so has the US.

There are numerous reports that all 17 agencies agree.

 

I'm not going down this rabbit hole.

 

Enjoy.

seriously....

 

you need to move away from the main stream media and do some research of your own.

 

wow.

Please, by all means, refer me to those media outlets that know the "true" story.

 

In the meantime, I'll take the word of all 17 intelligence agencies who've reached the conclusion cited.

 

Seriously.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper affirmed an Oct. 7 joint statement from 17 intelligence agencies that the Russian government directed the election interference — and went further.

"We stand more resolutely on that statement," Clapper said during a Senate Armed Services hearing with the intelligence chiefs into the politically charged issue.

 

This is not from any "main stream media" account. This was said during a televised Senate hearing on CSPAN. Right from the horse's mouth. Some of us don't rely on media to interpret things. We can hear and see for ourselves.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

There are numerous reports that all 17 agencies agree.

 

I'm not going down this rabbit hole.

 

Enjoy.

 

There are numerous news stories which say all 17 agree.

 

There just aren't any official documents releasing which back that up. In fact, the document touted as being such is anything but.

 

I won't drag you down the rabbit hole, but I would urge you - just based on the inconsistencies of this Kushner / back channel story - to take a step back and consider what you're really being told. If you do, you might see you're being sold an agenda by a faction of the US IC which has been pushing a neo-McCarthy movement against Russia for going on 5 years now. Not for the benefit of the United States, nor for any humanitarian purpose, but for the benefit of themselves, the MiC, and their regime change policy in Syria.

 

This isn't about political parties. It's not even about nation states. This is very much about an unelected group within the USIC trying to dictate policy through direct propaganda and manipulation of the media.

 

 

 

In the meantime, I'll take the word of all 17 intelligence agencies who've reached the conclusion cited.

 

 

This, again, is a false statement, K-9. There has never been a uniform consensus reached, let alone released in documented form, from all 17 intelligence agencies.

 

The fact you keep stating it as fact, when it's not, should at least give you some pause to reconsider your sources.

[K-9]

 

There are numerous news stories which say all 17 agree.

 

There just aren't any official documents releasing which back that up. In fact, the document touted as being such is anything but.

 

I won't drag you down the rabbit hole, but I would urge you - just based on the inconsistencies of this Kushner / back channel story - to take a step back and consider what you're really being told. If you do, you might see you're being sold an agenda by a faction of the US IC which has been pushing a neo-McCarthy movement against Russia for going on 5 years now. Not for the benefit of the United States, nor for any humanitarian purpose, but for the benefit of themselves, the MiC, and their regime change policy in Syria.

 

This isn't about political parties. It's not even about nation states. This is very much about an unelected group within the USIC trying to dictate policy through direct propaganda and manipulation of the media.

 

 

This, again, is a false statement, K-9. There has never been a uniform consensus reached, let alone released in documented form, from all 17 intelligence agencies.

 

The fact you keep stating it as fact, when it's not, should at least give you some pause to reconsider your sources.

So you're accusing Clapper of flat out lying at a Senate hearing while under oath? I'm out, man.

[Deranged Rhino]

So you're accusing Clapper of flat out lying at a Senate hearing while under oath? I'm out, man.

 

He's done it before, my friend. Remember this?

 

This was under oath and before Edward Snowden's leaks:

 

That was a bold faced lie.

 

Remember WMD in Iraq? It's not just the same agencies who pushed that on the US running the Russian narrative now, it's the same people.

 

So I guess my question is, considering how the Iraq war was pushed and what the truth turned out to be, how the NSA surveillence was lied about and then revealed to the public... why are you blindly taking the words of men who are proven liars?

 

If they were backing up their words with evidence, I'd be on board. But unnamed sources citing unnamed methods from men who have perjured themselves before Congress multiple times before is not evidence.

 

It's hearsay. Highly questionable hearsay.

 

My position on this matter remains the same as it when the first rumors started over a year ago: until I see evidence, consider me skeptical.

[K-9]

 

He's done it before, my friend. Remember this?

 

This was under oath and before Edward Snowden's leaks:

 

That was a bold faced lie.

 

Remember WMD in Iraq? It's not just the same agencies who pushed that on the US running the Russian narrative now, it's the same people.

 

So I guess my question is, considering how the Iraq war was pushed and what the truth turned out to be, how the NSA surveillence was lied about and then revealed to the public... why are you blindly taking the words of men who are proven liars?

 

If they were backing up their words with evidence, I'd be on board. But unnamed sources citing unnamed methods from men who have perjured themselves before Congress multiple times before is not evidence.

 

It's hearsay. Highly questionable hearsay.

 

My position on this matter remains the same as it when the first rumors started over a year ago: until I see evidence, consider me skeptical.

I believe the "evidence" being made available is a ways off at present.

 

OK, let's exclude the lying Clapper and those other "liars" for a moment. Let's agree that not "all 17" jointly agree as Clapper claimed. How many agencies would you be willing to take the word of? My guess is that NO number of agencies would suffice for you because, as you say, you are skeptical. So be it.

 

In the meantime, the timeline involved in the Kushner allegations as known so far, is damning. While you want to believe that Russia is the source, I can't agree given the FBI's stance. Kushner and others have been targeted and listened to since the FBI initiated it's investigation last summer.

[ALF]

D.R. if high officials like Hayden and Clapper are not credible who in the world do we believe (beside DC Tom and you) ?

Edited May 28, 2017 by ALF

[GG]

Russia is having a grand old time in throwing the intelligence community and the media for a loop. The masters of the misinformation campaigns are certainly affecting the nightly news conversations, but they're nowhere near affecting the policy. I smell a desperation in the air.

 

Greggy focuses on the arms deal that Saudis signed, but the bigger loss was not getting them to increase oil production. So, if Vlad goes after Jared, watch the Donald promote Dakotas' oil and hyper charge Keystone construction. Drill baby, drill.

[Deranged Rhino]

I believe the "evidence" being made available is a ways off at present.

 

OK, let's exclude the lying Clapper and those other "liars" for a moment. Let's agree that not "all 17" jointly agree as Clapper claimed. How many agencies would you be willing to take the word of? My guess is that NO number of agencies would suffice for you because, as you say, you are skeptical. So be it.

 

In the meantime, the timeline involved in the Kushner allegations as known so far, is damning. While you want to believe that Russia is the source, I can't agree given the FBI's stance. Kushner and others have been targeted and listened to since the FBI initiated it's investigation last summer.

 

I said I remain skeptical when the only evidence being provided comes in the form of unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. I don't think this in any way is an unreasonable stance to take, particularly when the folks presenting said things as evidence are known liars and perjurers.

 

If Clapper, Brenner, or Rodgers were backing up their statements with evidence, I'd absolutely listen. My only dog in this fight is the truth.

 

As for the bolded: I'm not believing Russia is the source, the story says they're the source. It's not even a controversial statement. An "unnamed" sourced leaked this story to the press in which it's claimed there is SIGINT of a conversation between Kislyak and another Russian about Kushner asking for a back channel. In other words, Kislyak was overheard saying on an open line, that Kushner requested to communicate through Russian channels. Kislyak - who is the Russian spy chief in DC - said this knowing he was speaking on an open line.

Why? Because he knew it would be a card to play if he wanted at a time of his choosing.

 

For a year the same sources you're relying on have built Kislyak (rightfully) up to be a savvy spy chief who's not above manipulating the media and planting "fake news". This story comes from him - yet it's being treated by those same outlets as gospel without looking any deeper.

 

That's not to say I doubt Kushner actually asked this. It wouldn't surprise me if he did. But it's not proof of collusion and, as stated earlier, isn't even out of the ordinary for back channels to be set up within administrations.

 

Kushner has been targeted by the FBI for months (with still nary a whit of evidence or proof in all that time) - but he's also been built up to be the voice of sanity compared the Banon's on Trump's staff by many media outlets and certain political factions. Now those same outlets and groups, who are so desperate for anything they can tar with the Russian stink, are drawing their knives on Kushner... because that's what Russia clearly wanted to have happen by virtue of the way Kislyak planted the story back in December.

 

Makes you wonder if you stop and think about it... makes you wonder about this whole narrative.

 

 

D.R. if high officials like Hayden and Clapper are not credible who in the world do we believe (beside DC Tom and you) ?

 

Clapper is a proven liar. Why would his word ever be credible to anyone again? Brenner, Hayden and some of the others mentioned in reference to this ongoing saga have their warts too... but Clapper should have been charged. He wasn't. Why is that? Because as Chuck Schumer reminded Trump days after the election: "If you go after the intelligence services in this country, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

 

My personal view is the ultimate authority is you. Yourself. Discernment is key. Trust yourself, trust your own research and findings.

[ALF]

 

I said I remain skeptical when the only evidence being provided comes in the form of unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. I don't think this in any way is an unreasonable stance to take, particularly when the folks presenting said things as evidence are known liars and perjurers

 

My personal view is the ultimate authority is you. Yourself. Discernment is key. Trust yourself, trust your own research and findings.

 

Keep up the good work you do D.R. , I for one really appreciate it .

[reddogblitz]

Keep up the good work you do D.R. , I for one really appreciate it .

Here here.

 

I particularly like this part

I said I remain skeptical when the only evidence being provided comes in the form of unnamed sources citing unnamed methods. I don't think this in any way is an unreasonable stance to take, particularly when the folks presenting said things as evidence are known liars and perjurers.

I would also add reported to us by people who promoted the WMD nonsense and that there was no way Trump could win. Consider the source. I am skeptical as well.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... Won't get fooled again.

Edited May 29, 2017 by reddogblitz

[Foxx]

 

... Please, by all means, refer me to those media outlets that know the "true" story.

 

In the meantime, I'll take the word of all 17 intelligence agencies who've reached the conclusion cited.

 

Seriously. ...

no, thats alright. if you are not open to other possibilities than what your puppet masters spew, there is no amount of troughs i can present that will help you change your mind. if you really are interested in knowing what is really happening out there, there is a wonderful resource at your fingertips. besides, i just don't have the time.

 

you would be well advised to just not reject, out of hand, the information DR hands out. his arguments are well rounded and very informative. as he says, i am only interested in the truth, the real truth. not the truth that pathological liers would have me believe to benefit their own interests . they have a sorted history of doing this to you and i throughout time. why would you or i trust them? i know, they must be telling the truth this time, right?

 

ETA: i will point you to one source... if you sincerely want to know what is happening outside of our borders and a perspective of those not US centric, try Moon of Alabama. that is the best i can do for you.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

 

There are numerous reports that all 17 agencies agree.

 

I'm not going down this rabbit hole.

 

Enjoy.

Please, by all means, refer me to those media outlets that know the "true" story.

 

In the meantime, I'll take the word of all 17 intelligence agencies who've reached the conclusion cited.

 

How many of them actually have the wherewithal to develop such intel and come to the conclusion themselves?

 

(Here's a hint: it's far fewer that had that ability to determine there were WMDs in Iraq.)

[K-9]

no, thats alright. if you are not open to other possibilities than what your puppet masters spew, there is no amount of troughs i can present that will help you change your mind. if you really are interested in knowing what is really happening out there, there is a wonderful resource at your fingertips. besides, i just don't have the time.

 

you would be well advised to just not reject, out of hand, the information DR hands out. his arguments are well rounded and very informative. as he says, i am only interested in the truth, the real truth. not the truth that pathological liers would have me believe to benefit their own interests . they have a sorted history of doing this to you and i throughout time. why would you or i trust them? i know, they must be telling the truth this time, right?

 

ETA: i will point you to one source... if you sincerely want to know what is happening outside of our borders and a perspective of those not US centric, try Moon of Alabama. that is the best i can do for you.

I have a ton of respect for Gregg, er, DR. And I certainly don't dismiss his stand out of hand. I just disagree with it.

 

The rest of your post that goes on to assume I'm just a pablum eating consumer of whatever my government and/or media feed me is totally out of line and completely dismisses my own experiences and abilities. I have little respect for that.

 

I will try Moon of Alabama as I've heard good things about it from others and I appreciate the reference. But as for not appreciating a non US centric pov, I've literally traveled the globe, much of it involving direct contact with foreign government and non-government entities. I find that non US centric view refreshing as well as highly informative.

 

I'm out of this thread but I will maintain that the timing and context of Kushner's contacts and request for a covert channel doesn't pass the smell test and I'll leave it at that.

 

How many of them actually have the wherewithal to develop such intel and come to the conclusion themselves?

 

(Here's a hint: it's far fewer that had that ability to determine there were WMDs in Iraq.)

Capability of the various agencies isn't the important take away, imo. There are at least three that do have superior capability to develop such intel and those other agencies that became privy to that intel seem to agree with the findings from what I can gather.

 

As for those WMD's, the few that DO have that superior capability were highly skeptical that they were in Iraq all along. Talk about politicizing intelligence. Anyway, I'm out of here. Can't stand the stench of PPP after a while.

[DC Tom]

Capability of the various agencies isn't the important take away, imo. There are at least three that do have superior capability to develop such intel and those other agencies that became privy to that intel seem to agree with the findings from what I can gather.

 

As for those WMD's, the few that DO have that superior capability were highly skeptical that they were in Iraq all along. Talk about politicizing intelligence. Anyway, I'm out of here. Can't stand the stench of PPP after a while.

 

That's not how intelligence agencies work. Most of the agencies have rather narrow missions supporting whatever branch or department they work under. As such, many have "superior capabilities" within their specific sphere.

 

And most are simply not capable of judging Russian political intelligence or cybercrime worth a ****. That's a very short list (three, like you said: CIA, State, and FBI.) The other fourteen don't develop that sort of information...they consume it. Their acceptance of the conclusions is irrelevant for being pro forma.

 

Contrast that to the WMD intel, where at least seven intel agencies had a primary capability and mission of generating the intel, and generated more of better reliability than we're seeing now.

[Foxx]

I have a ton of respect for Gregg, er, DR. And I certainly don't dismiss his stand out of hand. I just disagree with it.

 

The rest of your post that goes on to assume I'm just a pablum eating consumer of whatever my government and/or media feed me is totally out of line and completely dismisses my own experiences and abilities. I have little respect for that.

 

I will try Moon of Alabama as I've heard good things about it from others and I appreciate the reference. But as for not appreciating a non US centric pov, I've literally traveled the globe, much of it involving direct contact with foreign government and non-government entities. I find that non US centric view refreshing as well as highly informative.

 

I'm out of this thread but I will maintain that the timing and context of Kushner's contacts and request for a covert channel doesn't pass the smell test and I'll leave it at that. ...

i do apologize that i came across as you being a pablum eating consumer of US propaganda.

 

however, in my defense, reading the original post i responded to, i think it a reasonable assumption due to it's content,

 

that you find non US centric views enlightening tells me that you are not that pablum eating consumer, so i do apologize for having had the wrong impression, i'm sorry. i hope you are not leaving on my account, noone gains if you do stray.

 

also, nothing wrong with disagreeing with another stance as long as one is educated on the matter. i see some here that are simply not.

 

[4merper4mer]

i do apologize that i came across as you being a pablum eating consumer of US propaganda.

 

however, in my defense, reading the original post i responded to, i think it a reasonable assumption due to it's content,

 

that you find non US centric views enlightening tells me that you are not that pablum eating consumer, so i do apologize for having had the wrong impression, i'm sorry. i hope you are not leaving on my account, noone gains if you do stray.

 

also, nothing wrong with disagreeing with another stance as long as one is educated on the matter. i see some here that are simply not.

 

Why would Noone gain if K-9 left. Is Noone with the deep state?

[Tiberius]

It's been Soviet/Russian policy to try and disrupt US -German relations since at least 1945, and before even. Looks like Putin has really achived success with his Trump puppet as Germany now says it can't rely on US anymore, Trump refuses to affirm Article Five and has even demand payments from NATO countries. Sad

[Tiberius]

Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer in the White House for former President George W. Bush, on Saturday shared a link to a federal prison, suggesting it could be next years winter White House.

 

Next years winter White House? Painter tweeted with a link to a federal prison in Alabama.

 

 

Painter shared a link to Federal Prison Camp, Montgomery, an all-male minimum security prison in Alabama whose notable past inmates include former Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Charles Kushner, the father of Trump senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was convicted on charges of illegal campaign contributions and tax evasion.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/335418-bush-ethics-lawyer-shares-link-to-prison-as-trumps-2017-winter-white

[K-9]

 

That's not how intelligence agencies work. Most of the agencies have rather narrow missions supporting whatever branch or department they work under. As such, many have "superior capabilities" within their specific sphere.

 

And most are simply not capable of judging Russian political intelligence or cybercrime worth a ****. That's a very short list (three, like you said: CIA, State, and FBI.) The other fourteen don't develop that sort of information...they consume it. Their acceptance of the conclusions is irrelevant for being pro forma.

 

Contrast that to the WMD intel, where at least seven intel agencies had a primary capability and mission of generating the intel, and generated more of better reliability than we're seeing now.

Like I said, the respective capabilities of the other 14 aren't the big takeaway here. For whatever reason, they saw fit to sign on to the conclusions reached by the "big three". And I don't share the idea that they are just incapable idiots unable to discern good intel when shared by other superior intelligence gathering agencies.

 

When I contrast it to the WMD intel, my only concern is that it would be ignored in the same fashion. There was unanimity among the agencies back then, too.

i do apologize that i came across as you being a pablum eating consumer of US propaganda.

 

however, in my defense, reading the original post i responded to, i think it a reasonable assumption due to it's content,

 

that you find non US centric views enlightening tells me that you are not that pablum eating consumer, so i do apologize for having had the wrong impression, i'm sorry. i hope you are not leaving on my account, noone gains if you do stray.

 

also, nothing wrong with disagreeing with another stance as long as one is educated on the matter. i see some here that are simply not.

 

No worries. And you're right, Noone gains.

 

[/dev/null]

Richard Painter

Heheheh hey Beavis, his name is Dick Painter