TRUMP Team: If cia / nsa leaked "photoshopped" info to the media? Even more criminal act!!!!

a reply to: galien8

Yep ... I was experimenting with the parameters of the [size] tag.

Now:

Two items:

1. The leaks were by less than ten individuals according to reports. There are thousands of folks involved in the US covert services.

2. How much of your post revolves around the "if" in your second paragraph? Perhaps to display the proper significance you should have done something like ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: galien8

Yep ... I was experimenting with the parameters of the [size] tag.

Now:

Two items:

1. The leaks were by less than ten individuals according to reports. There are thousands of folks involved in the US covert services.

2. How much of your post revolves around the "if" in your second paragraph? Perhaps to display the proper significance you should have done something like ...

...ATS is jamming, you must be spamming...

a reply to: galien8

Therefore, it seems to be a logical conclusion that:

1. You grossly over-generalized when you suggested the entire IC was responsible for the Flynn leaks.

2. The great majority of your OP is pure conjecture and supposition.

Thanks for clearing that up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: galien8

Therefore, it seems to be a logical conclusion that:

1. You grossly over-generalized when you suggested the entire IC was responsible for the Flynn leaks.

2. The great majority of your OP is pure conjecture and supposition.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yes it is, so what? I have freedom of speech too, its my belief and my pursuit for happiness. (not that you said something to deny me that though, I just want to make that clear)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: galien8

Therefore, it seems to be a logical conclusion that:

1. You grossly over-generalized when you suggested the entire IC was responsible for the Flynn leaks.

2. The great majority of your OP is pure conjecture and supposition.

Thanks for clearing that up.

There are decent hardworking honest agents in cia, nsa, fbi, booz allen hamilton etc. too, trying to do what they are intended to do: protect the constitution, protect innocent civilians, protect the country, fight terrorism etc. But the cause does not justify the means

a reply to: galien8

There are decent hardworking honest agents in cia, nsa, fbi, booz allen hamilton etc. too, trying to do what they are intended to do: protect the constitution, protect innocent civilians, protect the country, fight terrorism etc. But the cause does not justify the means

Are you saying that protecting the Constitution, innocent lives, etc, is less important than Donald Trump's ego?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: galien8

There are decent hardworking honest agents in cia, nsa, fbi, booz allen hamilton etc. too, trying to do what they are intended to do: protect the constitution, protect innocent civilians, protect the country, fight terrorism etc. But the cause does not justify the means

Are you saying that protecting the Constitution, innocent lives, etc, is less important than Donald Trump's ego?

If Donald Trump gets impeached by fake evidence, and his election was not rigged at the (electronic) ballet boxes, every single one of them not hacked, then I fight for the good cause too, protecting The Constitution, written by wise men ;-( in the city of Philadelphia

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: galien8

There are decent hardworking honest agents in cia, nsa, fbi, booz allen hamilton etc. too, trying to do what they are intended to do: protect the constitution, protect innocent civilians, protect the country, fight terrorism etc. But the cause does not justify the means

Are you saying that protecting the Constitution, innocent lives, etc, is less important than Donald Trump's ego?

If Donald Trump gets impeached by fake evidence, and his election was not rigged at the (electronic) ballet boxes, every single one of them not hacked, then I fight for the good cause too, protecting The Constitution, written by wise men, in the city of Philadelphia

Don't worry: when Donald Trump gets impeached, the evidence will be rock solid. He is practically begging to be impeached with his own words. Exercising First Amendment rights makes you "the enemy of the people?"

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: galien8

There are decent hardworking honest agents in cia, nsa, fbi, booz allen hamilton etc. too, trying to do what they are intended to do: protect the constitution, protect innocent civilians, protect the country, fight terrorism etc. But the cause does not justify the means

Are you saying that protecting the Constitution, innocent lives, etc, is less important than Donald Trump's ego?

If Donald Trump gets impeached by fake evidence, and his election was not rigged at the (electronic) ballet boxes, every single one of them not hacked, then I fight for the good cause too, protecting The Constitution, written by wise men, in the city of Philadelphia

Don't worry: when Donald Trump gets impeached, the evidence will be rock solid. He is practically begging to be impeached with his own words. Exercising First Amendment rights makes you "the enemy of the people?"

I stand behind The President (who ever that might be)

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: gortex

BIG DIFFERENCE between a foreign hacker/spy of 5 decades (Russia) stealing Podesta e-mails, and the CIA implementing a carefully designed coupe attempt against their own boss.. the President of the United States of America.

The President of the United States is not their boss. The people of the United States are. If the President is committing a crime, it is their duty to report it so he can be impeached, as established by the Constitution. Impeachment is not a coup, whatever Russia may say about Ukraine.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: galien8
The criminality of revealing the evil machinations of tyrants (no matter which side of the political spectrum they issue from) will never and must never be seen as anywhere near as great as the acts they reveal.

Ok, so, what 'evil machinations' did these leaks reveal?

NONE.

All they revealed is that these people were doing their jobs.

Snowden's leaks revealed multiple massive criminal conspiracies.

The only two mistakes made during this current fiasco were a) Flynn lying to Pence about it (and we don't even know exactly what he said or didn't say there either), and b) Flynn being asked to resign (I think he was one of Trumps best appointments - him and Devos)

a reply to: tanstaafl

The only two mistakes made during this current fiasco were a) Flynn lying to Pence about it (and we don't even know exactly what he said or didn't say there either), and b) Flynn being asked to resign (I think he was one of Trumps best appointments - him and Devos)

Don't forget appointing a former paid RT employee as National Security Adviser. Oh, and a man who was decorated by Vladimir Putin as Secretary of State. In fact, we are only just beginning to understand how many mistakes have been made.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: galien8

Didn't Trump call on the Russians to engage in a criminal act by hacking Clinton

No. All he did, after someone suggested that Russia was behind the hacks of her (illegal) email server, was suggest that maybe Russia could 'find her missing emails' that she criminally deleted during a formal FBI investigation.

didn't he refer to the criminally obtained Podesta e-mails while campaigning and use them against Clinton?

Sure, why shouldn't he have?

Now the boot's on the other foot it's time to get upset.

Anyone who cannot see the difference between:

a) leaking information to prove criminal activity that would otherwise never see the light of day, and

b) leaking highly classified information (that contains ZERO evidence of wrong doing) for purely political purposes

really should just keep their mouths shut, else they suffer from 'foot in mouth' disease.

Whistle blowers blow whistles because they believe something is wrong , they don't risk their freedom on a political whim.

Not in this case. After the original NYT hit piece, it was ultimately admitted that there was ZERO evidence of any wrong doing. PERIOD. So it was purely a political withchunt designed, most likely, to accomplish exactly what it did - eliminate Flynn as Trumps NSA, since he was highly suspicious of the Deep State Intelligence Network.

There is more scope for corruption in this administration than any I can remember, we rely on whistle blowers to expose that should it happen and make it public , they lift the rock to expose the creatures below.

Seriously?

Ok, I'm game - please provide a list of 10 - or even 5 - or even 1 - thing that Trum has done that is evidence of corruption and/or criminal wrong doing.

I won't hold my breath.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Sorry, but the messenger deserves to be shot when it is running around foaming at the mouth spouting nonsense.

a reply to: DJW001

When were we at war with Russia?

Oh yea never... so who cares if a guy was decorated by Putin, and who cares if a guy worked for RT... if that is the worst information on them... hooray... I worked with a guy from Iraq on B-52's high security clearance. If the pass the background check required for the position then it should not matter.

===============================

To the more in general point, Some people in this thread seem to think fake (IE photo-shopped) information is a good thing as long as it gets rid of their boogyman...

What fricking dimension have I fallen into... do you people have short memories... how many times are the left going to set a precedent and then cry about it when the other side uses the same tactics.

I never thought I would see the day when people I considered highly intelligent would be ok with (as in the OP) photshop being used to push false (if they had to manipulate it, I have to wonder about credibility) information... especially with a guy like Trump, who will hang himself if you just wait.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: galien8

The Justice Department and intelligence communities are sworn to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States.

True.

If the President is involved in illegal activities, treason, or is mentally unbalanced, it is their duty to provide the evidence necessary to remove him from office before he does irreparable damage.

I agree, as far as the comment itself goes.

But, in context, apparently your intention is to imply that Trump is 'involved in illegal activities, treason, or is mentally unbalanced'?

Look, I'll allow that Trump really does say some silly/dumb things when he repeatedly lies about silly things like the margin of his electoral college win, or crowd sizes (although it has been proven that there was a concerted effort to prevent people from getting to the inauguration, so we'll never know what the crowd size may have been without these nut job 'protestors'), but aside from saying silly and/or dumb things (and I really wish he would stop doing this), what else do you have?

Or, to put it another way - "Where's the beef?"

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Wearedone

If Trump is acting as the agent of a hostile foreign power, it is treason. Period.

If... if... IF.

The problem is, there is ZERO evidence that he is. PERIOD.

How would you react if your President Putin was found collaborating with the CIA... even if it was "to prevent World War Three?"

Setting aside the ridiculous '... YOUR President Putin'...' quip, it would depend on exactly what that 'collaboration' consisted of.

You see, to sane, rational people, context and content really does matter.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Wearedone
It was Russia that started this new Cold War through their actions in Ukraine

Yeah... except that those pesky hings called 'facts' demolish your entire strawman.

Or maybe you were unaware that there is plenty of evidence the US was complicit, if not the instigator, of the Ukrainian overthrow in 2014?

now this administration seems intent on removing sanctions placed on Russia for annexing Crimea

And maybe there is more to this than meets the eye too?

and being complicit in the shooting down of a civilian airliner with no obvious concession from the offending party

No way to prove who shot it down, but it is just as possible it was the US backed rebels.

a reply to: brutus61

Would you rather the CIA handled this the old fashioned, shooter on the grassy knoll kind of way?

I am pretty sure they learned an awful lot from that debacle.

And as for there being a difference between Snowden's releases, and this... not really. Even as he was, he could have found a way to get a message to a Congressperson, or a Senator. But he had no way to know who within those chambers, would have been more willing to bury the whole topic, than ever see any of it come to light at all. Similarly, the intelligence agencies could have put a missive out to Congress on the matter of Trump, but given that Trump has the ear of the Republican base right now, given also that the Republican Congresspersons, while not all of them might like him, cannot be seen to be against him without seeing their support ebb, its a reasonable assumption that the information might have been buried by a majority in the Congress, while alerting Trumps supporters in the room, that their man was under attack.

The only way to release the information so that everyone had a fair crack at it before it got spun by the media or by the politicians, was to ensure that the information was released directly.

Do I trust the intelligence agencies? No. Not a bit. Not their motivations, not their methodology for more than half of what they do, far more than half in fact. Do I believe that they were wrong here though? Not in conclusion, nor in the methodology they applied. They might be motivated by all sorts of crap, all sorts of people, but unless what they are stating is factually inaccurate, I cannot understand for the life of me why the fact of their releasing the information, is considered to be more of a big deal than its contents.

The thing is this:

If Trump is not guilty of what they claim he is, if he has not been co-opted, if he is indeed a man without strings, then he can prove that he is, call their bluff. If, however, he is exactly what they have said that he is, a compromised value, then there are ramifications for his Presidency that cannot be brushed aside, simply because the information which shows as much was not delivered into the public consciousness by the precisely correct method, or because the source of the information is an organisation we cannot trust. If their information proves accurate, it matters not whether it was signed off by the devil himself. Trump, if an owned asset of foreign powers, must be held to account, regardless of the fact that the CIA are dirt through and through.

And by the way, this is PRECISELY why those of us who were up in arms about Trumps lack of moral standing, were dead right to be worried about it. You see, lets assume for a moment, that he had tried to drain that swamp, that he had of been the sort of man to attack the rot, rather than become it.

When one sets oneself up for such a task, one cannot enter into it if one is, oneself, dirty. These tasks are best taken on by those who have never cheated on a test, never cheated on their spouse, never had a questionable history of business practices, never caused hardship to others, never been heard to say anything remotely inflammatory about a group of people, never been befriended or agreed with by white supremacists and other terrorists, but an absolute paragon of virtuous conduct. Anyone less than that can be taken apart systematically, or in one fell swoop.

And here's another thing... anyone less than that, damned well should be.

Now, that being said, it is perfectly probable that Trump trying to muscle out the competition for the monopoly on screwing the American people over, has caused his main rivals to react. That is how I see this. However, Trump is not the man to take those rivals on, because he is not on a moral footing necessary to do it, and because its pretty clear from what he has already said and done, that if he were to be successful, he would only replace that monopoly on screwing over the American people, not destroy it and leave the position unfilled.

So, its largely irrelevant whether the intelligence services are squeaky clean. We know they are not. But it IS relevant whether or not Trump is, because he is the man at the front, and the man making the noise, and as I said already, you cannot send a dirty player after dirty players, and expect the game to get cleaned up as a result.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Obviously mentally unbalanced. Who lies constantly just because....

originally posted by: Nickn3
Releasing info on the inside working of the White House is a crime. It may be the morale thing to do, but still a crime. It weakens the Administrations role in conflicts and negotiations. If you do the crimes, be prepared to do the time.

So what do you suggest? If the president is committing a crime we should just let him because to do otherwise would destabelize the administration?