Trump Tower Bugged by BHO?

[ssu]

Even if he did somehow manipulate public opinion successfully to any degree it's still not good enough for the left. We have Bush's old ethics lawyer saying twitter bots and RT amount to treason. Bush's ethics lawyer lol.

As I've said, if Putin would be an American billionaire, some sort of Super-Koch/Soros type with his own Super-Pac henchmen, everything would be just ordinary US politics. It's only the part that it was a foreign country that is a bit uncomfortable for some people.

Just how it happened is the thing here.

If Trump asked a favour from the Russia and they replied "ñooo problem!"? -That would be the impeachment outcome

If some Manafort just get help from friends? -That would be the typical "Let's throw some little guy under the bus and have amnesia", like during the Iran-Contra scandal. The normal Washington scandal that an able President could wiggle himself out of.

Or did Putin just decide that "Hell with Hillary, guys, were are backing Trump"? Like payback from the election troubles he (Putin) had in Russia? If that would be the case, or if Republicans could simply stall everything, that would be the Clinton ending: yeah, something, but no jail time for anyone.

Or wait, then it's all a huge coincidence, conspiracy, frenzy of fake news. Which Speaker to Animals thinks it is.

[StCapps]

That's a lot of if's that assume nefarious motives Alex Jones. Occam's Razor never was your forte, especially when it comes to a Trump-Russia connection.

[TheReal_ND]

Yeah I mean that seems reasonable. Fwiw Comey basically stated he thinks Russia was actively opposed to Hilary, but the how is the question. Podesta simply got phished. Anyone could have done that, I don't care how many snuggle bears or pookey bears the CIA claims they found in honey pot servers it's not proof of anything necessarily.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is PizzaGate's counterpart.

[StCapps]

Yeah I mean that seems reasonable. Fwiw Comey basically stated he thinks Russia was actively opposed to Hilary, but the how is the question. Podesta simply got phished. Anyone could have done that, I don't care how many snuggle bears or pookey bears the CIA claims they found in honey pot servers it's not proof of anything necessarily.

If it wasn't Russia who hacked the DNC, it would certainly be of benefit to the real hacker to make it seem like that was the case to cover his tracks. If it was Russia who hacked the DNC, then it would certainly be of benefit to make it seem like anyone could do it to cover their tracks. So it really could go either way, assuming in either direction at this point is a clear indication of bias based on the minimal evidence presented thus far, and is mere speculation.

[TheReal_ND]

Well especially in light of the recent Wikileaks that demonstrate how the CIA can false flag "cyber attacks."

[StCapps]

Well especially in light of the recent Wikileaks that demonstrate how the CIA can false flag "cyber attacks."

Especially so in light of that, but that won't stop Trump haters from assuming he's Putin's best friend with evidence that proves nothing about the identity of these cyber attackers. They want to jump to conclusions because it supports their previous assumption that Trump is Putin's buddy because he doesn't slam him as hard as the neocons do, confirmation bias pure and simple.

[Speaker to Animals]

The funny thing about it..

The same deep state faggots who keep leaking embarrassing intelligence (violating the Espionage Act in the process) most likely have access to whatever the GOP was up to. They are like Sauron's eye (a motif I know they like to explicitly make use of).

If all they have is the Flynn conversation with an ambassador, or Session's totally open relations with an ambassador (as part of his job, no less), then this story comes out as a disaster for the democrats and the deep state.

Are you really going to tell me they have all sorts of intelligence that the GOP was doing equally illegal and shady things as the DNC, but they wouldn't leak that prior to the election to destroy Trump before he would come to power and threaten their hold on our democracy? Really?

Hillary lost because (1) most of us hate her fucking guts, and (2) all her crimes and corruption were exposed. That some of those exposes were accomplished by hacking is fucking irrelevant. Go after the hackers if you can find them. Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that Hillary and the democratic party are a bunch of fucking criminals who belong nowhere near any seats of power.

[pineapplemike]

NY Times Outs White House Sources Who Provided Intel Reports To Nunes
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-3 ... orts-nunes


In the latest development surrounding last week's announcement by Devin Nunes, according to which President Trump and his associates were incidentally swept up in foreign surveillance by American spy agencies, the NYT reports that the pair of White House officials who played a role in providing Nunes with the intelligence reports behind his claim, have been identified.

The NYT has outed the Nunes sources, who it claims are Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence at the National Security Council, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer who works on national security issues at the White House Counsel’s Office and formerly worked on the staff of the House Intelligence Committee

...

In other words, the US has devolved to the point where one set of anonymous sources is doxxing another set of anonymous sources in the pursuit of a political agenda.

Holy shit man, can we get Smitty to do a proper write up on this whole fuckin fiasco? I've been paying reasonably close attention but it's starting to get too complex for a casual observer

[ssu]

Well especially in light of the recent Wikileaks that demonstrate how the CIA can false flag "cyber attacks."

Much more it was a show of the technology and the handycraft.

Basically the US launches a broad multi-front information & cyberattack only when it goes to war. Hence only then, for example a journalist that makes somewhat critical article is targeted. But otherwise, the US doesn't care. Hence the whole spectrum of information warfare is just viewed as assistance to the conventional warfare.

Russia doesn't think this way. This is one of the important differences between US and Russia in this field. Where the US resorts to such actions only against a dedicated foe, Russia does this all the time and hence it isn't so noticeable. And thus is the different between peacetime and wartime blurred. Here the Russians are far more smarter than the US. This is evident from the Gerasimov doctrine, defined By a Westerner:

General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Federation’s military, developed The Gerasimov Doctrine in recent years. The doctrine posits that the rules of war have changed, that there is a “blurring of the lines between war and peace,” and that “nonmilitary means of achieving military and strategic goals has grown and, in many cases, exceeded the power of weapons in their effectiveness.” Gerasimov argues for asymmetrical actions that combine the use of special forces and information warfare that create “a permanently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state.”

What people fail to understand that the information warfare doesn't mean that it's just a precursor to something bigger, that it's made before Putin starts to warm up the tank engines. It basically means that if used correctly, you can achieve your objectives with it without resorting to the conventional military, either through a show of force or conflict.