Fake News

[Speaker to Animals]

You don't want an honest debate at all. That much is clear.

When people present you with arguments you cannot counter, you try to bury those arguments with cat pictures and insults. That's not an honest debate, and you don't have any claim on wanting an honest debate.

[Speaker to Animals]

And it's not just Monty; it's most of the left.

Consider how many times, when confronted with arguments from the right, they feign outrage or act like the argument is preposterous or is beyond the bounds of acceptable conversation to even express. It's become a very common personality trait on the left.

They know their ideology has failed and the only way they can sort of keep their ship afloat is to engage in these fallacious tactics.. which is pretty much the opposite of an honest debate.

[kybkh]

I have yet to see any non-Trump supporter comment on the NYBook article that Chris Hayes tweeted out, anything Glenn Greenwald has been saying concerning the CIA or any of the other points being made by non-typical Trump supporters.

The only thing I hear from the left is..."but the CIA says"...The fucking irony! First I thought it was funny, now I am getting angry because these liberal elites are telling the plebs that the CIA is the good guys now and the Left just falls in line and retweets anonymous CIA sources as the end all truth sayers.

[adwinistrator]

I have yet to see any non-Trump supporter comment on the NYBook article that Chris Hayes tweeted out, anything Glenn Greenwald has been saying concerning the CIA or any of the other points being made by non-typical Trump supporters.

The only thing I hear from the left is..."but the CIA says"...The fucking irony! First I thought it was funny, now I am getting angry because these liberal elites are telling the plebs that the CIA is the good guys now and the Left just falls in line and retweets anonymous CIA sources as the end all truth sayers.

I think Greenwald's article was great, as it clearly exposes the dangers of anonymous sources, and aligning yourself with, anonymous IC sources.

We had a short email chat after I sent my thoughts on the piece about how the problem he points out on the left will become a bipartisan issue once Trump is inaugurated, and those in the IC who support him will be leaking information to the media as well.

It will be anonymous source vs. anonymous source, and you know the media will not be identifying what agency they are from, which will make it near impossible to determine the facts, and each side will have their ammo for the debate over who's news is fake news.

Welcome to the 21st century.

PS: I still have to read the NY Books article, and will do so during lunch.

[kybkh]

Look at all the context I have been trying to add to this conversation besides just calling names.

I am trying to create a narrative where i can imagine what the CIA is saying is true and I am struggling. Mainly because there is no believable motives being provided.

Is DJT determined to destroy this nation along with Flynn, Mattis and the rest of the Right? Was DJT using Putin to get elected with the promise of lifting sanctions? That's plausible but it does not mean there has been a communist takeover.

So let's start there, the most believable scenario we can imagine from the leaks made by the CIA. Trump, through Flynn, arranged the hacking and coordination with Wikileaks and Putin to de-legitimize HRC in return for Trump lifting sanctions.

What was required to make this happen? First, there had to exist emails which would aid in the de-legitimization. Second, the email accounts had to be hackable. Without either of those prerequisites this "scandal" could not have occurred. Who is responsible for those two conditions? Not Trump, nor Putin, not even wikileaks.

So Putin had his boys hack DNC emails and release them. Oh man, good thing the DNC is on the up and up. No way there are any incriminating or insulting comments made by the DNC. No way they conspired against Bernie Sanders. Oops they did and now the American people know about it and have reacted.

Nothing too scurrilous there because its just facts being made public. Not lies and fake news.

So let's move forward, now is Trump's turn to quid pro quo and remove sanctions on Russia. Is there legitimate danger in doing so, not to the CONUS. Possibly, if a foreign govt interfering within our election becomes a regular occurrence (as if they don't already) it could prove rather dangerous.

What if, as is being suggested today that in removing the sanctions the INF Treaty is re-enacted and RU agrees to further reduce it's nuclear force, even possibly end the existing state of launch on warning protocols in place. Would this have all been worth it?

This is all conjecture of course but that is all we can do, which is all the CIA is doing.

[kybkh]

This narrative, that we have been discussing here for the last week is a million times more believable to me...

With General Mattis as Secretary of Defense, Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor, General John Kelly as Secretary of Homeland Security, a top-of-class West Point graduate in Mike Pompeo brought in to take over and undoubtedly purge the CIA, and a lame duck struggle breaking out over the NSA with Admiral Mike Rogers, the implications are pretty obvious.

The white hats we have needed within the national security and intelligence departments are responding from a select group within the Defense Department. This DoD surge appears to be why corporate media interests initially began railing against “too many generals”.

The DoD generals also appears to be why all of those interests -within all of those corrupted political intel institutions- are going nuts thinking about what lays ahead.

Mounting evidence supports the ongoing thesis the Department of Defense has actually seceded from the political elites. A wonderfully patriotic soft coup of sorts has actually taken place. Now, with the Presidency of Donald Trump, the white hats are poised on the horizon to reconstruct a nationalist-minded defense, security and intelligence apparatus.





https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... g-delight/

[kybkh]

[kybkh]

This is who we, the American people, with zero security clearance are supposed to believe?

Please!!! Help me TRUST the fucking CIA!! REDPILL me like no one has been redpilled before!!!! I want to believe!!!!!

John Brennan admits CIA improperly hacked into Senate computers

The CIA admitted to senators this week that the agency improperly snooped through congressional computers, backtracking from agency Director John O. Brennan’s vehement denials earlier this year and further denting the embattled intelligence community’s credibility with Congress.
An internal CIA audit found that its personnel did search a Senate computer system seeking an embarrassing document that the agency believed had been stolen, but which senators said the CIA had turned over to Congress.
At the time, Mr. Brennan called the accusations “spurious” and “beyond the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.”
This week, he had to retreat and apologize to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence[/i]

Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who initiated a Senate probe of the snooping, said the CIA’s behavior was “appalling and deeply threatening to our system of checks and balances” and that agency leaders need to take steps to restore trust.
Other lawmakers said it’s too late and that Mr. Brennan has squandered the trust of Congress. Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, demanded his resignation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... uters-sea/

[adwinistrator]

Look at all the context I have been trying to add to this conversation besides just calling names.

I think you're doing a good job of it, I'm trying to add to the conversation as well.

I am trying to create a narrative where what the CIA saying is true and I am struggling. Mainly because there is no believable motive being provided.

Is DJT determined to destroy this nation along with Flynn, Mattis and the rest of the Right? Was DJT using Putin to get elected with the promise of lifting sanctions? That's plausible but it does not mean there has been a communist takeover.

I don't think any sort of malicious intent needs to be presumed on the part of Trump, Flynn, Mattis, or anyone else. The only intent and motivation needed is by those in the Trump campaign to want to win the election, and to want a major shift in our foreign policy alliances.

So let's start there, the most believable scenario presented by the CIA. Trump, through Flynn, arranged the hacking and coordination with Wikileaks and Putin to de-legitimize HRC in return for Trump lifting sanctions.

From what I understand, the claims being made are that the hacking was arranged between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin, in returns for softening the Republican Party platform on supporting Ukraine, and for Trump's support for Russia's claim on Crimea. Wikileaks was not involved as far as I understand.

What was required to make this happen? First, there had to exist emails which would aid in the de-legitimization. Second, the email accounts had to be hackable. Without either of those prerequisites this "scandal" could not have occurred. Who is responsible for those to conditions? Not Trump, nor Putin, not even wikileaks.

Agreed. I do think it's worth noting that any normal email system is hackable. While system security can make it more difficult, it only offsets the time and cost of penetrating a server's security. Zero day exploits are sold for up to 5 or 6 figures, and a smart hacking operation will attempt to use social engineering in conjunction with any system penetration. It is always easier, and cheaper, to get humans to make mistakes.

So Putin had his boys hack DNC emails and release them. Oh man, good thing the DNC is on the up and up. No way there are any incriminating or insulting comments made by the DNC. No way they conspired against Bernie Sanders. Oops they did and now the American people know about it and have reacted.

Nothing too scurrilous there because its just facts being made public. Not lies and fake news.

Politics and sausage. If you think the same hack performed on the RNC wouldn't have show the same type of corruption, bias, quid-pro-quo favors, and favoritism, I think you're mistaken.

While the wikileaks and DC leaks emails are not lies or fake news, there has certainly been a lot of fake news made about them. Last I heard, Podesta is kidnapping girls in Portugal and running a child trafficking ring out of a pizza restaurant, wait no, that's Clinton's operation for smuggling Haitian orphans to perform ritualistic satanic sacrifices on... Or was Podesta the Satan worshiper...

So let's move forward, no is Trump's turn to quid pro quo and remove sanctions on Russia. Is there legitimate danger in doing so, not to the CONUS. Possibly, if a foreign govt interfering within our election becomes a regular occurrence (as if they don't already) within our political system it could prove rather dangerous.

I agree, I'll be judging Trump based on his actions, and will trying to follow what the goals and implications of a foreign policy shift will be. With the current discussions on the dossier and the possibility of more leaks, I can't imagine Trump's administration doing the exact quid-pro-quo that has been outlined in the media, but I'd guess that it will be framed as "on the table for negotiation". If Trump's going to drop sanctions, he'll need to play it as a win to his base, a show of his ability. If he just gives it away for promises of future benefit, or some under-the-table gains, he will look weak and ineffective.

This is all conjecture of course but that is all we can do, which is all the CIA is doing.

100%, conjecture is the best we have. I think it's important to understand what the possibilities are, try to determine who gains from those scenarios, what risks they are taking, and discount those that seem impossible. As good 'ole Rummy once said, there are unknown unknowns, things we don't know we don't know.

[kybkh]

How the was the Director of the CIA allowed to retain his position after illegally hacking the US Senate and being caught lying about it?

If confidence in their findings is critical to their mission this make no sense.