US spy chief promises Putin motive

[zenkai]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38521503



Do you think Trump will continue putting himself before his country by denying such accusations from his own intelligence? Irrespective of the election however I find such accusations quite scary if indeed true

allegedly = facts?

[Beazy]

The same US spy chief who told the Senate Intelligence Committee to their faces that the NSA was not collecting data on American citizens.

There's more at play here than just his assessment of the matter, but James Clapper's testimony isn't worth squat.

Same agency that said 'we have factual evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'.

Fool me once. . . . .

[0ptimo]

This was the most sophisticated, multi-pronged attack on our government. Ever.





EVER.

[GuavaJava]

But because of that one hearing, you're going to discount everything the man has ever said?

Yes. James Clapper's conclusions will have zero effect on how my opinion finally settles on the matter.

[Beazy]

This was the most sophisticated, multi-pronged attack on our government. Ever.





EVER.

Successful Phishing attempt on DNC basement server> GREATEST HACKING THREAT THE US HAS EVER SEEN!!!!!!!!!

My eyes rolled so far into my skull I look like Illidan now.

[Tommi]

Why in all of this have we been ignoring the amount of elections America has influenced in other countries, and how we justified it over and over as being for international good, but no NOW its a problem. Oh Please, cry more that your team lost your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Spot on.....

[TZucchini]

Yes. James Clapper's conclusions will have zero effect on how my opinion finally settles on the matter.

No one really cares about your opinion on the matter, to be honest. They're concerned about whether or not the President Elect will accept the conclusions of our intelligence agencies. Or whether he'll continue to praise Putin and Assange.

[Stacyrect]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38521503



Do you think Trump will continue putting himself before his country by denying such accusations from his own intelligence? Irrespective of the election however I find such accusations quite scary if indeed true

I'm fairly confident that no one, not even Trump, will dispute the assertions being made by the intelligence committee's when they actually provide solid evidence of it. What they have provided thus far is inadequate. The evidence thus far is the equivalent of finding an ak-47 or pair of chopsticks at a crime scene and automatically deducing based on that, that it was a state sponsored actor of the corresponding paraphernalia. While Guccifer 2.0's story doesn't seem to add up in some respects in regards to his methods, are we to assume this hacker is 100% truthful? Tech firms have been quick to point out inconsistency's in his statement/blog however their is very relevant information that they are not disputing at the same time.

In the past we have seen thorough reports and evidence from fed. agencies. I don't recall anytime in recent memory when such bold accusations have been made and we've seen such knuckle dragging from the intelligence community. Regardless whether Russia did or did not, this is nothing short but a cringe worthy embarrassment to the US

[Krigaren]

Perhaps you didn't read the article. A lot has changed. The countries top intelligence official went on the record, implicating Russia in not only hacking emails, but disseminating fake news and other propaganda, in an attempt to interfere with our election process.

You're wasting your breath. Their dear leader was elected, and they could care less how or why. Espionage against our country? No biggie, cause it made the other side look dumb for 15 minutes.

These people aren't patriots. They only care about winning and feeling as though all of their terrible, treasonous beliefs are vindicated.

[Edge-]

Same agency that said 'we have factual evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'.

Fool me once. . . . .

No, that was Bush. The intelligence community only confirmed that they had chemical weapons (though not in large quantities) and stressed that much of the intelligence used by the Bush administration to strengthen their case for war in Iraq (active chemical weapons production facilities including on rails, large enough volumes to actually be WMD's, etc.) was not from reliable sources and should be treated with a level of skepticism.

But Bush and his administration knew better than to listen to the intelligence community, just like Trump who doesn't need to receive daily briefings from them.

Either way, intelligence communities can never be 100% perfect. But that doesn't mean that they should be distrusted, because what's the fucking point of having a network of intelligence agencies if your government leaders don't trust them and spend time publicly contradicting and undermining trust in them?

[Varitok]

The President elect is publicly questioning intelligence officers within the Federal Government, while praising Putin and Assange.

Do you think Russia has succeeded in making America look weak?

I think so, its pretty laughable that Trump is already walking all over the US' european allies who have been dealing with Putins shit for years now.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yeah, the public release on Monday can only be judged after Trump tells you how to respond.

I'm looking forward to Monday's release, not how Trump will deny it.

We all know you're going to wait for WaPo/NYT/CNN/MSNBC to tell you how to respond, too.

But no, I'm waiting to see what will be Trump's reaction because I'm genuinely curious. Will he flip 180 degrees? Will he turn against Secret Services?

That's the president of the United States. God forbid me if I am curious about what's going to be his perception. Even though I don't believe in god, but you get the point.

[GuavaJava]

No one really cares about your opinion on the matter, to be honest. They're concerned about whether or not the President Elect will accept the conclusions of our intelligence agencies. Or whether he'll continue to praise Putin and Assange.

Rhetorical or not, you're the one who included a question when responding to my post.

- - - Updated - - -

Either way, intelligence communities can never be 100% perfect. But that doesn't mean that they should be distrusted, because what's the fucking point of having a network of intelligence agencies if your government leaders don't trust them and spend time publicly contradicting and undermining trust in them?

Trump or no other government leader has undermined my trust in our intelligence agencies. James Clapper undermined it by lying to Congress. The CIA undermined it when it hacked into Senate Intelligence Committee computers to delete evidence when that committee had an active investigation going about the CIA.

[Beazy]

No, that was Bush. The intelligence community only confirmed that they had chemical weapons (though not in large quantities) and stressed that much of the intelligence used by the Bush administration to strengthen their case for war in Iraq (active chemical weapons production facilities including on rails, large enough volumes to actually be WMD's, etc.) was not from reliable sources and should be treated with a level of skepticism.

But Bush and his administration knew better than to listen to the intelligence community, just like Trump who doesn't need to receive daily briefings from them.

Either way, intelligence communities can never be 100% perfect. But that doesn't mean that they should be distrusted, because what's the fucking point of having a network of intelligence agencies if your government leaders don't trust them and spend time publicly contradicting and undermining trust in them?

There were many flawed security reports from the CIA and other intel agencies. We didnt find out until, I think 2004 (cant think of the report name, google will help if you're interested), when a declassified report showed the administration overplayed their hand on WMDs.

[Felya]

We all know you're going to wait for WaPo/NYT/CNN/MSNBC to tell you how to respond, too.

Well, no, you assume I will. I'm saying I'll wait for a public report. I know you will wait for Trump's response, not because I assume you will, despite you claiming otherwise. But, because that's what you said...

But no, I'm waiting to see what will be Trump's reaction because I'm genuinely curious. Will he flip 180 degrees? Will he turn against Secret Services?

His choice is to deny it or to admit he was wrong. You really need to wait to see which one it will be?

That's the president of the United States. God forbid me if I am curious about what's going to be his perception. Even though I don't believe in god, but you get the point.

No, I don't. Trump is denying assertions being made. The report will not hinge in its validity to what Trump will respond with. I don't care for his spin...

[Skandulous]

That was during an open hearing. And the program was classified. Not exactly the right place to discuss it. Either way, Clapper has stated he was wrong to not provide them with more information.

But because of that one hearing, you're going to discount everything the man has ever said? That's pretty transparent.

Your very naive if you believe everything the govt tells you. The govt. isnt for you it does not care about you your just a drop in the bucket.

[Felya]

There were many flawed security reports from the CIA and other intel agencies. We didnt find out until, I think 2004 (cant think of the report name, google will help if you're interested), when a declassified report showed the administration overplayed their hand on WMDs.

No, the evidance Bush used was recanted, because the informant was shown to just be after money, before the war. The report is called the 9/11 commission, which didn't have CIA or FBI making a case for WMDs... but, Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bush went against US intelligence, foreign intelligence and UN inspectors... just like Trump is doing now, not the other way around.

- - - Updated - - -

Your very naive if you believe everything the govt tells you. The govt. isnt for you it does not care about you your just a drop in the bucket.

According to the guy who benefited from this? Because Trump has your best interest in mind? US government is of the people, by the people and for the people...

[Krigaren]

Thought your side says patriotism is bad. You know, globalism and all that noise. Shouldn't you be happy they arnt patriots then?

You should probably ask an actual liberal about what they think of patriotism rather than conservative agitators on the radio. The left is extremely patriotic. Only our patriotism doesn't come at the expense of others, the constitution, or our ideals.

Nomenclature on your side is that "patriot" is a gun-toting, bible humping, gay-hating, immigrant fearing, born-again child of God. Those kinds of patriots the left aren't fans of, because they don't care a lick about what this country is actually about - but sure are eager to use their guns to defend it.

[Felya]

Oh and just like Trump, Bush also bitched about media treating him unfairly... which is why he brought back a ban of showing military coffins that his dad originally instilled. Because evil media was trying to sway the public from supporting the war.

- - - Updated - - -

Thought your side says patriotism is bad. You know, globalism and all that noise. Shouldn't you be happy they arnt patriots then?

You are bitching about globalism on the internet. Any self awareness at all?

[Independent voter]

"If you try to destroy the fundamentals of democracy, then you have destroyed a nation," McCain told reporters on Capitol Hill. "And by the way, there are various gradients of acts of war. I'm not saying it's an atomic attack. I'm just saying that when you attack a nation's fundamental structure, which they are doing, then it's an act of war."

McCain is a Republican Senator.