IGX

There is no Deep State civil war.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eting.html

bennyonesix wrote:On a lighter note

CwOARZWWIAAfjcy.jpg

That bitch had the audacity to actually block you?

Note, I did not read any page beyond the above post.

Don't really plan to either.

Thanks bruv.

TRUMP: I wish Russia would hack us!
CIA: Looks like Russia hacked us.
TRUMP: Don't believe our CIA!
IGX: FINALLY A REAL LEADER!

You know we're through the looking glass when Jennifer Rubin is the voice of reason.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ri ... 8f1714efb3

I'll just leave this here...it's pretty hypocritical that the CIA is complaining about foreign interference helping to install a right wing candidate.

Along with this. Assange, and a bunch of former Ambassadors are claiming the link is internal and now they are pulling a CYA.


https://sputniknews.com/us/201611021046 ... c-podesta/

No hypocrisy. The story on the left had nothing to do with espionage. Scanning it, there doesn't even appear to be any US government involvement. Yeltsin's team hired American campaign professionals to help them with election operations, something Russians weren't used to.

Democratically elected governments the CIA has helped overthrow since WW2. From my own reading, I suspect this is a severe low ball estimate.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/map ... verthrown/

No hypocrisy. The story on the left had nothing to do with espionage. Scanning it, there doesn't even appear to be any US government involvement. Yeltsin's team hired American campaign professionals to help them with election operations, something Russians weren't used to.

Your sure if there was Russian involvement, they weren't "campaign advisors"? The same way the CIA acts as "advisors". LOL.

Also, while the Americans who helped Yeltsin were paid consultants, I don't believe for a second there was no government involvement. It was Russia's first (or second?) free election and his opponent was an old school, hard line communist.

tonkadtx wrote:Democratically elected governments the CIA has helped overthrow since WW2. From my own reading, I suspect this is a severe low ball estimate.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/map ... verthrown/

No hypocrisy. The story on the left had nothing to do with espionage. Scanning it, there doesn't even appear to be any US government involvement. Yeltsin's team hired American campaign professionals to help them with election operations, something Russians weren't used to.

Your sure if there was Russian involvement, they weren't "campaign advisors"? The same way the CIA acts as "advisors". LOL.

Also, while the Americans who helped Yeltsin were paid consultants, I don't believe for a second there was no government involvement. It was Russia's first (or second?) free election and his opponent was an old school, hard line communist.

They name the actual people, Dick Morris (lol) among them. They were well-known political professionals. I get the sense somebody found a twistable headline and put them side-by-side, assuming (correctly) people wouldn't read the article.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:No hypocrisy. The story on the left had nothing to do with espionage. Scanning it, there doesn't even appear to be any US government involvement. Yeltsin's team hired American campaign professionals to help them with election operations, something Russians weren't used to.

Negro pls. Just admit you are now backing the CIA because they are backing your candidate. And in the past your criticisms of them were for the opposite reasons. Don't you feel any compunction to be straightforward? You'll feel better after, trust me.

I can honestly say I never trusted the CIA and never will. Doesn't mean they haven't done good work, it just means their public statements aren't trustworthy.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

tonkadtx wrote:Democratically elected governments the CIA has helped overthrow since WW2. From my own reading, I suspect this is a severe low ball estimate.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/map ... verthrown/

No hypocrisy. The story on the left had nothing to do with espionage. Scanning it, there doesn't even appear to be any US government involvement. Yeltsin's team hired American campaign professionals to help them with election operations, something Russians weren't used to.

Your sure if there was Russian involvement, they weren't "campaign advisors"? The same way the CIA acts as "advisors". LOL.

Also, while the Americans who helped Yeltsin were paid consultants, I don't believe for a second there was no government involvement. It was Russia's first (or second?) free election and his opponent was an old school, hard line communist.

They name the actual people, Dick Morris (lol) among them. They were well-known political professionals. I get the sense somebody found a twistable headline and put them side-by-side, assuming (correctly) people wouldn't read the article.

Ok. Let's assume you are correct and there were no covert actions taken to help Yeltsin.

Is it your contention that US intel agencies have not as a part of core practice interfered in foreign elections?

And if they could have, they would not have interfered in Soviet and or Russian elections?

Have you ever been critical of the CIA for this and or for dishonesty in public statements?

Have you ever argued that the CIA was not trustworthy?

you're telling me the cia fucked with another sovereign country's elections?

really?

do you get a direct feed with the info from sputnik into your game boy?

well, assuming ,perhaps, we did try to advise another country, it would only be to advance democracy. please tell me i'm right. the cia are our guys, so they're the good guys.

right?

grow up children. our guys have been poking people in the eye for decades, allegedly in the national interest. that doesn't mean we have to tolerate some sawed-off, former kgb horse-fucker messing with out business.

donnie the bully would take him out, except putin has the goods on his orangeness. ducktail donnie is compromised. he's the manchurian fucking candidate.

it's so obvious.

Maybe you just can't make the leap...

But let me try again, if you didn't trust the CIA back then, why do you do so now?

What is your opinion of the argument I have put forward that there is a civil war going on inside the US Deep State (cia v nsa v fbi v dod)?

your argument regarding the cia is a version of ad hominem, which is illogical.

because they were wrong before, does not mean they are wrong now. so, sure, be skeptical, but pursue the truth. (by the way, if you are dismissing all statements by a person who has previously been wrong or lied, we cannot rely on a single thing that trump says. or so your logic would say. actually, in his case, your logic works.)

i don't have a clue if our intelligence agencies are in serious conflict. there are enduring turf wars, and comey got his hand forced by someone, but who knows what's up with the spooks.

It is not "wrong" (though they are often that: wmds lolo) or that they have lied. They are dishonest as a matter of practice. And I am not dismissing the claim. I have said it is possible and understandable that Russia would hack the US and especially Clinton (their great enemy). But I refuse to accept their unsubstantiated claims on anything. And these are unsubstantiated and even admittedly lacking direct evidence.

The larger point is still unaddressed by you: why do you trust them now?

Ad Hominem reasoning is not always fallacious. If a person is arguing, the argument must be evaluated on it's merits. If a person is testifying - credibility, hypocrisy, motivation must all be evaluated. This was tantamount to testimony, not backed up by evidence.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

i don't know what evidence they have. do you?

the intelligence they have gathered should be fully considered.

i'm not sure how often the cia is wrong, and how often the cia appears wrong because politicians adjust the agency's findings or misuse them. my guess is that various leaders' determination to impose their will is more the problem than the cia intelligence itself.

point of clarification: all u.s. intelligence agencies agree that the russians meddled. so far, the cia is alone is saying vlad's purpose was to favor trump.

Clapper said there was no evidence when he testified on Nov. 17th.
The FBI said there was no evidence of a connection.


This is a pretty good take down of the CIA assertions. The Intercept is anti CIA, but they are also anti Trump.

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/ano ... -evidence/

I guess DHS decided two can play at that game. Then blame it on a "rogue employee".

https://www.cyberscoop.com/georgia-hack ... h-johnson/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/po ... dence.html

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity ... terference

While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia's motives, according to The Post.

Last week, during a meeting with the House Intelligence Committee, a senior FBI counterintelligence official gave remarks to lawmakers that were "fuzzy" and "ambiguous" in comparison to those made the CIA, the paper reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/08/0 ... -dnc-hack/

“There are claims that in the meta data, someone has done a document in a PDF conversion, and that in some cases the language used in the documents is Russian, and therefore the computer that was used for that conversion was Russian,” he said.

“That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released,” he continued.

dead man walking wrote:i don't know what evidence they have. do you?

the intelligence they have gathered should be fully considered.

i'm not sure how often the cia is wrong, and how often the cia appears wrong because politicians adjust the agency's findings or misuse them. my guess is that various leaders' determination to impose their will is more the problem than the cia intelligence itself.

God damn it Dwm.

FUCK.