(02-15-2017 12:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The US intelligence community, at least part of it, declaring war on the President does worry me.

Agreed...the fact that the president and his administration are distrusted to the point that intelligence officers are beginning to withhold information is extremely disturbing.

http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump...n-embassy/

I can't figure out which part you find disturbing. That the intelligence community doesn't believe it can trust the Trump WH, or that, because of that distrust, they are witholding the info?

This quote is good insight into the issue:

Quote:What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow wasn’t something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin, and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution and concern.

(02-15-2017 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

yeah, call me when they are made public.

Now, give me the evidence for this: "... then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?" You imply targeting, when what I see is easy opportunity on one server, and you imply support for the other as a motive. How do you prove that motive, lad?

Next, I would like to point out that like the released emails, "...it isn't like these leaks are made up". Yeah, truth is what was leaked. But in one case, by your own statements, it was an enemy, and in the other, our own people acting as vigilantes in violation of law and their duty. Exactly the same?

Lastly, he forced Flynn to step down because he lied to the VP. Must be hard to accept if it doesn't fit the narrative that we caught a Russian minion.

I think a lot of this Russian hysteria is just that - hysteria, and it doesn't even hold together logically. Trump as a tool of Russia - then what's the problem with Flynn talking to them? Why in the world would Russia prefer Trump and/or the Republicans over Hillary and/or the Democrats? Obama spent eight years bending over backward for Russia, why would they worry about Ms. business-as-usual? The pronouncement I heard was that the Russians wanted to sow distrust of our system, and if so, the Dems are working hand in hand with them to achieve that result, to the benefit of Russia, as you would say.

BTW, I understand the author of that linked report is a liberaL

OO, you should read some more news stores. A lot of articles have been written about the issues Putin personally had with Clinton. Basically they hated each other, which makes it easy to see why Putin did not want to see her become president.

Here's a decent summary on where Putin's resentment comes from (that also includes his views on Trump and some of his picks):

Quote:Putin’s resentment of Clinton was always manifest; it is almost as severe as Trump’s. Putin saw the Clinton Administration of the nineties as having taken advantage of Russian weakness after the fall of the Soviet Union, twenty-five years ago. He viewed Hillary Clinton as a foreign-policy hawk who wanted regime change from Baghdad to Kiev to Moscow. In 2011, Putin, who lives in fear of spontaneous uprisings, events like the Arab Spring and the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia, accused Clinton of giving “a signal” to urge thousands of Russians to come out on the streets of Moscow to protest parliamentary-election “irregularities” and Putin’s intention to return once more to the Kremlin as President.

In the past few weeks, I’ve had conversations with Russian political experts, and all of them agreed that Putin was certainly pleased, at least initially, with Trump’s victory—and that satisfaction is reflected, too, on countless news and talk shows on television. These analysts added that Putin is undoubtedly cheered that Rex Tillerson, Trump’s appointment to head the State Department, was likely to leave behind American “sanctimony” about human rights and democracy and, following the pattern of his career at ExxonMobil, to concentrate on purely “transactional politics.” Some, however, wondered if Putin will remain enchanted with Trump once he encounters Trump’s inconsistencies, his alarming penchant for surprise pronouncements via Twitter.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/...e-big-hack

Here's one which explains Clinton's views on Putin:

Quote:For Clinton, the rhetoric reflects genuine disappointment and frustration from a tumultuous term as secretary of state during which cooperation between Moscow and Washington briefly soared, only to come crashing to Earth after Putin’s reelection as president in 2012 following a four-year hiatus, according to current and former U.S. officials involved in Russian policymaking at the time. Clinton, who began her tenure by famously offering a “reset” of Russian relations, would end it by publicly blasting Putin’s government on issues including alleged vote-rigging in Russia and Putin’s support for Syria’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad.

Putin would fire back with repeated attacks against her, ­often injecting an unusually personal tone into the growing diplomatic rift. The exchanges helped cement an adversarial view of Clinton on the Russian side that may explain, more than any other single factor, the apparent efforts by Russian operatives to influence the election by hacking email accounts of senior Clinton staff members, longtime Kremlin observers say.

“She has policies and a history that the Russians don’t like,” said Michael McFaul, who became the U.S. ambassador to Moscow during Clinton’s final year as secretary of state. “It’s frequently forgotten because there’s so much noise about Trump and Putin. But this history is real, and Putin doesn’t forget these things.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7f2f279c7c

And finally, a succinct summary of their beef:

Quote:If Russia is indeed behind the damaging leak of Democratic Party emails on the eve of its national convention, it's not just because President Vladimir Putin likes Republican nominee Donald Trump and his pro-Russian views, former U.S. officials and experts tell NBC News.

It's because the former KGB operative hates Trump's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, with such a passion that he wants to embarrass her personally and undermine — if not derail — her presidential campaign, they say.

For a Russian leader who is considered as vain as he is ruthless, Clinton's criticism long ago crossed over from the political into the personal. He carries a grudge against a woman who has publicly compared him to Hitler and expressed doubts that he has a soul.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-...on-n617236

Yes. I started to bring this in, to refute your accusation that the hacking was done "to overtly support the other". It is entirely possible that Putin hated Hillary more than he liked Trump. It is entirely possible he didn't care who was president as long as it wasn't Hillary. It also could be that he wanted to sow distrust of the election system, and the DNC computers et al were just so much easier to hack than the RNC, and one is enough.

The Flynn talks are not worrisome to me yet. For all we know, he told the Ambassador to not worry his pretty little head about sanctions, meaning almost anything. The US intelligence community, at least part of it, declaring war on the President does worry me.

And where does this fit in?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/russ...d=45490605

With regards to hacking, this is one of the situations where A = B - so hurting Hillary was helping Trump in the same manner that helping Trump would have hurt Hillary. You're right that, had another person run as a Republican they may have done the same thing, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the conversation.

And I mostly agree that in isolation the Flynn talks don't worry me much. However, when I look at the entire body of work surrounding the Trump campaign, from Manafort to Flynn to the softening of language in the RNC platform regarding Russia's involvement with Crimea (that was reportedly lead by the Trump campaign), there are just so many weird Russian connections at this point that it does worry me that we perhaps had or have something fishy going on between the Trump administration and Russia. That worry is why I am supportive of some Senate Republicans that are publicly calling for an investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia.

And the US intelligence community has no "declared war" on Trump. This is the same intelligence community that bent over backwards to investigate Clinton (and leak information the Rudy G.). They are not a monolith - but there are obviously some members who are concerned with the information they're being exposed to.

And where does the Russian plane fit in? I have no idea and couldn't even begin to speculate. So far I've generally avoided much speculation and just centered my comments on what was reported and why/why not I was concerned about it. But the ship's being buzzed fits in nicely next to Russia's test of a ballistic missile that shows they are likely trying to flex their muscles a bit. They did not like the firing of Flynn, that's for sure.

(02-15-2017 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

So I take it that it is of no concern to you about intelligence leaks.

Both Flynn's activities (notwithstanding what was said, since no one like us actually really knows), and the lying to the Veep are worrisome.

The leaking of that information to the press is also highly worrisome. As much as the initial actions. But no one seems to really give a rat's ass about that side of this coin.

This is not the "either/or" game you make it out to be.

I'm a bit torn on the intelligence leaks. It doesn't appear as if these leaks have caused any classified information to be leaked and they are American officials releasing information to the American press, which has corroborated the reports with other sources. They have also been fairly objective and more about reporting on the contents of the reports and investigations. You had some sources going out of the way to state that there was no explicit promise to reduce sanctions - so they really wanted to make it clear that they were just letting the reporter know that the conversations happened and to not speculate about future discoveries.

And remember, leaks similar to this is what brought down Watergate. Whistleblowers can be important.

But I do understand the implications that a very leaky intelligence agency has and how it can erode the trust of both the ruling party and potentially the electorate. If the FBI had not been so leaky about Clinton, I could see the case being made that this is some partisan BS. But right now, it seems like they are willing to talk about investigations into both sides, so I do not think this is some indication of a partisan intelligence agency.

But I think this can be an either or. You can not fall squarely on one side of this situation and fall squarely on the other for the Russian-led hacking. If you are concerned about one, you should at least harbor some form or concern about the other, and vice versa.

Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

(02-15-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:30 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 11:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Weaponized spin

Far too many Trump critics appear not to care that these intelligence agents leaked highly sensitive information to the press — mostly because Trump critics are pleased with the result.

So you're more concerned about intelligence officers leaking information ahead of time, in reports that will likely be made public, then Russia directing hackers to steal information from one political party to overtly support the other?

Because based on your previous and current comments, that's what it seems like.

And it isn't like these leaks are made up, nor did they lead to an arrest of Flynn. They led to him being fired by the President. If Trump thought that this was just some witch hunt as he suggested, why did he force Flynn to step down?

So I take it that it is of no concern to you about intelligence leaks.

Both Flynn's activities (notwithstanding what was said, since no one like us actually really knows), and the lying to the Veep are worrisome.

The leaking of that information to the press is also highly worrisome. As much as the initial actions. But no one seems to really give a rat's ass about that side of this coin.

This is not the "either/or" game you make it out to be.

I'm a bit torn on the intelligence leaks. It doesn't appear as if these leaks have caused any classified information to be leaked and they are American officials releasing information to the American press, which has corroborated the reports with other sources. They have also been fairly objective and more about reporting on the contents of the reports and investigations. You had some sources going out of the way to state that there was no explicit promise to reduce sanctions - so they really wanted to make it clear that they were just letting the reporter know that the conversations happened and to not speculate about future discoveries.

And remember, leaks similar to this is what brought down Watergate. Whistleblowers can be important.

But I do understand the implications that a very leaky intelligence agency has and how it can erode the trust of both the ruling party and potentially the electorate. If the FBI had not been so leaky about Clinton, I could see the case being made that this is some partisan BS. But right now, it seems like they are willing to talk about investigations into both sides, so I do not think this is some indication of a partisan intelligence agency.

But I think this can be an either or. You can not fall squarely on one side of this situation and fall squarely on the other for the Russian-led hacking. If you are concerned about one, you should at least harbor some form or concern about the other, and vice versa.

Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with you views on it.

The initial official who leaked the information, which has no been corroborated and elaborated on by others, simply said that Flynn and the Russian's talked on that day, and that was it. In my mind, that hardly seems like political assassination right there. Flynn could have admitted to it, proceeded to tell the US what they discussed and then moved on. The assassination was done by Flynn himself.

(link to the original article that broke the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...46eadce883)

I understand how you can see these leaks as concerning if you view them as a concerted effort to unjustly remove an elected official. But I don't see evidence that there is some sort of collusion here in the leaks - it appears more to be reporters doing their jobs and people being willing to share information about ongoing investigations. If they started leaking information that could get say, some of our undercover operatives killed, or divulges strategic national interests, then I could understand the concern. Or, if these leaks were proven to be false/made up, then I would definitely be on board.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so intelligence officials talking about the truth to the press doesn't really strike me as being horrible. Heck, that was who Deep Throat was - I don't think that Mark Felt did a disservice to the country.

(02-15-2017 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 12:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The US intelligence community, at least part of it, declaring war on the President does worry me.

Agreed...the fact that the president and his administration are distrusted to the point that intelligence officers are beginning to withhold information is extremely disturbing.

http://observer.com/2017/02/donald-trump...n-embassy/

I can't figure out which part you find disturbing. That the intelligence community doesn't believe it can trust the Trump WH, or that, because of that distrust, they are witholding the info?

This quote is good insight into the issue:

Quote:What’s going on was explained lucidly by a senior Pentagon intelligence official, who stated that “since January 20, we’ve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the SITROOM,” meaning the White House Situation Room, the 5,500 square-foot conference room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings. “There’s not much the Russians don’t know at this point,” the official added in wry frustration.

None of this has happened in Washington before. A White House with unsettling links to Moscow wasn’t something anybody in the Pentagon or the Intelligence Community even considered a possibility until a few months ago. Until Team Trump clarifies its strange relationship with the Kremlin, and starts working on its professional honesty, the IC will approach the administration with caution and concern.

I find the former disturbing...the intelligence community should do whatever it has to in order to preserve the proprietary knowledge of the US and ensure the nation's security. If that means withholding info, then so be it.

(02-15-2017 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with you views on it.

The initial official who leaked the information, which has no been corroborated and elaborated on by others, simply said that Flynn and the Russian's talked on that day, and that was it. In my mind, that hardly seems like political assassination right there. Flynn could have admitted to it, proceeded to tell the US what they discussed and then moved on. The assassination was done by Flynn himself.

(link to the original article that broke the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...46eadce883)

I understand how you can see these leaks as concerning if you view them as a concerted effort to unjustly remove an elected official. But I don't see evidence that there is some sort of collusion here in the leaks - it appears more to be reporters doing their jobs and people being willing to share information about ongoing investigations. If they started leaking information that could get say, some of our undercover operatives killed, or divulges strategic national interests, then I could understand the concern. Or, if these leaks were proven to be false/made up, then I would definitely be on board.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so intelligence officials talking about the truth to the press doesn't really strike me as being horrible. Heck, that was who Deep Throat was - I don't think that Mark Felt did a disservice to the country.

So what was the motive for the leak action re: Flynn? Did they just pick up the phone and dial the Washington Post for sh-ts and giggles?

Assuming that *all* that was leaked was Flynn met (and none of us know *what* was leaked, unless we are the reporters or the leakers, much as none of us know what Flynn discussed with the Russian, for that matter...), then absent some intent of malfeasance re: Flynn or those associated with Flynn, all you are realistically left with is doing it for sh-ts and giggles..... (a possiblity that cannot be thrown out, but actions like this almost *always* tend to have a motive of some sort.)

For the life of me I cannot think up viable alternatives to trying to screw Flynn and company. The sh-ts and giggles excuse doesnt fly for me for some reason here....

Somebody had a t-rd pie, and decided to play it.

Probably the intent wasn't to 'get Flynn fired for malfeasance', since you are correct that they probably did not have the information that Flynn had stated otherwise to Pence. But someone certainly had a reason of some sort to toss this t-rd pie into the fray, most likely to create bad optics. Again, this reason falls into either political assassination or a one to create bad optics to obstruct an administration that they dont like. Either one is disturbing to me.

If the goal was to see if a crime had occurred, could have simply gone down the report it to the authorities route. But the path the information went (and leaked in a criminal manner, if not authorized by some fairly high source), says to me this was a hit job, either for scalps or for political optic points.

That is very disturbing to me.

As disturbing as an executive branch trying to use a club of executive power on opponents, for examples going the other way vis a vis the governmental power structure.

(02-15-2017 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with you views on it.

The initial official who leaked the information, which has no been corroborated and elaborated on by others, simply said that Flynn and the Russian's talked on that day, and that was it. In my mind, that hardly seems like political assassination right there. Flynn could have admitted to it, proceeded to tell the US what they discussed and then moved on. The assassination was done by Flynn himself.

(link to the original article that broke the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...46eadce883)

I understand how you can see these leaks as concerning if you view them as a concerted effort to unjustly remove an elected official. But I don't see evidence that there is some sort of collusion here in the leaks - it appears more to be reporters doing their jobs and people being willing to share information about ongoing investigations. If they started leaking information that could get say, some of our undercover operatives killed, or divulges strategic national interests, then I could understand the concern. Or, if these leaks were proven to be false/made up, then I would definitely be on board.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so intelligence officials talking about the truth to the press doesn't really strike me as being horrible. Heck, that was who Deep Throat was - I don't think that Mark Felt did a disservice to the country.

So what was the motive for the leak action re: Flynn? Did they just pick up the phone and dial the Washington Post for sh-ts and giggles?

Assuming that *all* that was leaked was Flynn met (and none of us know *what* was leaked, unless we are the reporters or the leakers, much as none of us know what Flynn discussed with the Russian, for that matter...), then absent some intent of malfeasance re: Flynn or those associated with Flynn, all you are realistically left with is doing it for sh-ts and giggles..... (a possiblity that cannot be thrown out, but actions like this almost *always* tend to have a motive of some sort.)

For the life of me I cannot think up viable alternatives to trying to screw Flynn and company. The sh-ts and giggles excuse doesnt fly for me for some reason here....

Somebody had a t-rd pie, and decided to play it.

Probably the intent wasn't to 'get Flynn fired for malfeasance', since you are correct that they probably did not have the information that Flynn had stated otherwise to Pence. But someone certainly had a reason of some sort to toss this t-rd pie into the fray, most likely to create bad optics. Again, this reason falls into either political assassination or a one to create bad optics to obstruct an administration that they dont like. Either one is disturbing to me.

If the goal was to see if a crime had occurred, could have simply gone down the report it to the authorities route. But the path the information went (and leaked in a criminal manner, if not authorized by some fairly high source), says to me this was a hit job, either for scalps or for political optic points.

That is very disturbing to me.

As disturbing as an executive branch trying to use a club of executive power on opponents, for examples going the other way vis a vis the governmental power structure.

Another reasonable aspect was that someone felt the public had the right to know about some of the findings of the report? And perhaps they felt that the best way to ensure that the public found out was to leak the information to the press and then force the issue to be confronted, and let the chips fall how they fell.

Again, if Flynn truly did nothing wrong in the call that was leaked our anything else, he shouldn't have lied about it and could have easily turned it around on the leaker for prematurely leaking and trying to make things political. But because Flynn doubled down on the fact that he did not have contact with the Russian diplomat, he screwed the pooch.

I think your potentiality is reasonable, just not the ONLY reasonable rationale.

Puzder withdraws his nomination as Labor Secretary because he wasn't going to get confirmed. Democrats with a minor victory - their first since Trump took over. It would be nice if Trump tries to appoint a Democrat to replace him but I won't hold my breath on that happening.

It appeaers Puzder has withdrawn his nomination for Sec of Labor.

(02-15-2017 04:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 02:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-15-2017 01:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually you are comparing apples and oranges when conflating a leak situation to a hack situation.

One is where someone gives the information out freely, of their own volition, typically in order to harm something or someone.

A hack is when the person or entity who is getting the information is the active person in breaking down the walls of access to that information.

Am I concerned that a third-party is actively trying to gain access? Sure, but that it what foreign governments and other groups are doing all the frigging time.

If the hack was into a NORAD computer I'd have a concern level of about 9.5 out of 10.

If the hack was into an unsecured private server that a high ranking US official was using to routinely discuss confidential and highly classified subjects -- again about a 9.5, and at least some of that 9.5 coming from gross negligence and utter contempt of that US official.

When the hack is into a private political party network -- the concern drops to about a 3.5. When the hack is actually some dumb*** pol pro handing out his password to the network emails, well as the credit card commercial says -- 'priceless'.....

If an intelligence officer, official, worker, or agency is reporting **** to the the authorities charged with policing that type of malfeasance -- about a 1.5.

If an intelligence officer drops this same into the frigging press -- about a 7.5. By definition the choice of whom to disclose this is very telling. Whomever dropped this to the press did so with the intent of a political assassination (rightly or wrongly) of Flynn. You really can't doubt that considering the leak was to someone with a huge megaphone. *That* intent that seems to be at the root of this is very troubling to me.

I see what you're saying, but disagree with you views on it.

The initial official who leaked the information, which has no been corroborated and elaborated on by others, simply said that Flynn and the Russian's talked on that day, and that was it. In my mind, that hardly seems like political assassination right there. Flynn could have admitted to it, proceeded to tell the US what they discussed and then moved on. The assassination was done by Flynn himself.

(link to the original article that broke the news: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...46eadce883)

I understand how you can see these leaks as concerning if you view them as a concerted effort to unjustly remove an elected official. But I don't see evidence that there is some sort of collusion here in the leaks - it appears more to be reporters doing their jobs and people being willing to share information about ongoing investigations. If they started leaking information that could get say, some of our undercover operatives killed, or divulges strategic national interests, then I could understand the concern. Or, if these leaks were proven to be false/made up, then I would definitely be on board.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, so intelligence officials talking about the truth to the press doesn't really strike me as being horrible. Heck, that was who Deep Throat was - I don't think that Mark Felt did a disservice to the country.

So what was the motive for the leak action re: Flynn? Did they just pick up the phone and dial the Washington Post for sh-ts and giggles?

Assuming that *all* that was leaked was Flynn met (and none of us know *what* was leaked, unless we are the reporters or the leakers, much as none of us know what Flynn discussed with the Russian, for that matter...), then absent some intent of malfeasance re: Flynn or those associated with Flynn, all you are realistically left with is doing it for sh-ts and giggles..... (a possiblity that cannot be thrown out, but actions like this almost *always* tend to have a motive of some sort.)

For the life of me I cannot think up viable alternatives to trying to screw Flynn and company. The sh-ts and giggles excuse doesnt fly for me for some reason here....

Somebody had a t-rd pie, and decided to play it.

Probably the intent wasn't to 'get Flynn fired for malfeasance', since you are correct that they probably did not have the information that Flynn had stated otherwise to Pence. But someone certainly had a reason of some sort to toss this t-rd pie into the fray, most likely to create bad optics. Again, this reason falls into either political assassination or a one to create bad optics to obstruct an administration that they dont like. Either one is disturbing to me.

If the goal was to see if a crime had occurred, could have simply gone down the report it to the authorities route. But the path the information went (and leaked in a criminal manner, if not authorized by some fairly high source), says to me this was a hit job, either for scalps or for political optic points.

That is very disturbing to me.

As disturbing as an executive branch trying to use a club of executive power on opponents, for examples going the other way vis a vis the governmental power structure.

Another reasonable aspect was that someone felt the public had the right to know about some of the findings of the report? And perhaps they felt that the best way to ensure that the public found out was to leak the information to the press and then force the issue to be confronted, and let the chips fall how they fell.

Again, if Flynn truly did nothing wrong in the call that was leaked our anything else, he shouldn't have lied about it and could have easily turned it around on the leaker for prematurely leaking and trying to make things political. But because Flynn doubled down on the fact that he did not have contact with the Russian diplomat, he screwed the pooch.

I think your potentiality is reasonable, just not the ONLY reasonable rationale.

We have some imstitutions in which the individual is not free to do whatnhe thinks right. for example, the military, and for another, our intelligemce agencies. What havoc we would have if every agent decided for himself who could or could not be privy to the stuff he knows.

comey took a lot of heat for doing essentially themsame thing. But at least he was in a position of leadership.

so do we really want every antiTrump operative breaking the law for,his side, and every proTrump operative breaking the law for HIS side?

And if the public has a right to know, why the heck is ANYTHING classified?

I thought that when the subject was Hillary's e-mails, the important thing was that the truth was out, not that she was hacked.

(02-15-2017 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  With regards to hacking, this is one of the situations where A = B - so hurting Hillary was helping Trump in the same manner that helping Trump would have hurt Hillary. You're right that, had another person run as a Republican they may have done the same thing, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the conversation.

If hurting Hillary was the goal, that's one thing. If helping Trump was the goal, that's another. The entire hysteria is built on the premise that the goal was helping Trump.

I guess, having grown up in the Cold War years, practicing "duck and cover" at school,touring bomb shelters, watching Khruschev tell us he would bury us, and living through the Cuban Missile Crisis, this all seems a bit bogeymanish to me, especially since the hysteria seems crafted to help the Democrats. It is reminiscent of the Red Scare of Joe McCarthy.

The whole thing doesn't hang together. If Trump is Putin's willing stooge (willing but incompetent, according to some), what is the point of fighters buzzing ships and missiles being tested? Seems to me if we had a puppet in the Kremlin, we would lean over backwards not to give him trouble. And again, if Trump is a mole, what could Flynn have done to hurt us that couldn't have been done by Trump? Basically, it seems we have half the politicians and 80% of the media just stirring the pot, not for the benefit of the American people, but for the benefit of the 50% of the politicians.

For the first time in my life, it seems like a coup in Washington could be possible. Convince enough people that Trump is a Red...

Interesting perspective, from not exactly a right-wing nut:

(02-15-2017 09:37 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  https://youtu.be/7j_ZfKmcnSk

really good interview here. says we need peace and to be allies with Russia now. no matter what you think of Trump, this isn't a game folks. JFK and Eisenhower were right.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

No Democrats for Secretary of Labor, please. I'm serious.

OO, pulling back the hysteria in this thread that really, only you are pushing, let's drill down to the most basic question about this situation. Do you not think there are enough coincidences/occurrences that have either taken place between the Trump organization and Russia (not a true ally at the moment) or that connect the two, for there to be any inkling of concern?

If not, why not? If so, would you support what are starting to be some bipartisan calls for investigation to evaluate if they are coincidences or something more?

For me, there's at least a prima facie case that Trump is hundreds of millions of dollars
in debt to Russian banks and investors. Which to one degree or another means Putin.
If not, he could/should dispel it.

OO, I was in kindergarten across the Red River from Barksdale AFB (SAC) during the Missile Crisis .
The skies were busy.

I've heard or read the phrase "deep state" three times today.
It seems Trump's pissed it off.

I grew up when we had to form the Wolverines to fight against the Soviet occupiers.

(02-16-2017 09:13 AM)JSA Wrote:  For me, there's at least a prima facie case that Trump is hundreds of millions of dollars
in debt to Russian banks and investors. Which to one degree or another means Putin.
If not, he could/should dispel it.

OO, I was in kindergarten across the Red River from Barksdale AFB (SAC) during the Missile Crisis .
The skies were busy.

I was in high school. I thought we were going to war, and I would be fighting it, if I survived the first strike. Even so, I had no idea then how close we really came.

These days, though, yearn for a President like JFK who would stand up to the enemy, rather than drawn red lines and sit idle.

One of my favorite shows as a youngster was I Led Three Lives. About a man who was a communist agent in the US and also a double agent. Russia was the ever present evil enemy for the first 45 years of my life. I guess I tend to think of all this Russian hysteria as Chicken Little stuff. I guess It's kind of like everybody is getting hyterical over a light rain when I grew up in a monsoon.

(02-16-2017 09:25 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I grew up when we had to form the Wolverines to fight against the Soviet occupiers.

I grew up when I thought we would have to.

and is that from Red Dawn? I thought they fought the Japanese.