Reply With Quote
I know they've done all of this in the past. That's why I said they would have leaked this kind of do ent in the past.
If I was going to be butthurt about them leaking Democrat info, it would have been well before this year.
Try to follow along.
-- this thread
I know they've done all of this in the past. That's why I said they would have leaked this kind of do ent in the past.
If I was going to be butthurt about them leaking Democrat info, it would have been well before this year.
Try to follow along.
I have been following along. You whined that WikiLeaks is "openly partisan" because you're still mad that they didn't collude to prop up your corrupt hag of a candidate like the rest of the media did. You implied that they've somehow changed for the worse because they didn't publish false smears against Trump alongside the very real corruption of Hillary and her inner circle. Now you're backpedaling because you're full of and can't defend your emotional, butthurt claims.
This sounds like an organization whose #1 priority is still transparency.
I claimed none of those things, and I'm not backpedalling from anything. I was fine with the DNC/Podesta leaks.
They did change for the worst. The fact Clipper Nation cant see---or won't admit it says everything you need to know about him. Not interested in facts.
Wikileaks did stand for something years ago. Now they're just acting like a bunch of babies because big bad wolf Hillary was once after me so I'm going on a revenge kick.
They would have passed on it just like every other credible journalist that was approached with it did.
WikiLeaks–Verified account @wikileaks
35 page PDF published by Buzzfeed on Trump is not an intelligence report. Style, facts & dates show no credibility.https://www.do entcloud.org/do e...legations.html …
WikiLeaks–
WikiLeaks has a 100% record of accurate authentication. We do not endorse Buzzfeed's publication of a do ent which is clearly bogus.
So an email with a recipe for risotto is relevant, but an intelligence do ent that was passed by John McCain to the head of the FBI and seen by some of the most powerful people in government wouldn't be up to Wikileaks journalistic standards or meet their "we open governments" criteria?
You're basically making my case for me. In 2013, Wikileaks publishes that do ent, without question. They would comment on the information being unverifiable, but the do ent itself would be published. I don't know what happened.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-11-2017 at 09:20 PM.
He's a public servant now. He has to be the president for everybody, including CNN and it's reporters (whether he likes them or not at a personal level is largely irrelevant).
It doesn't take a lot of class to simply state "I won't comment on unverified information".
It might be 'entertaining' for a reality show, but the tirades are well below the office he will now command.
John Podesta's emails were verified to be from John Podesta's account. What source has been verified that provided the dossier?
John McCain:
"Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/313716-mccain-gave-dossier-containing-sensitive-information-to-fbi
Glenn Greenwald nails it:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/...as-dems-cheer/cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very en ies that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth — despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie — is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.
Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and ins utions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?
All of these toxic ingredients were on full display yesterday as the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified do ent, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump, accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.
Shock doctrine:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/...1112016-3.htmlSince November 8 we’ve had four crises of legitimacy of escalating intensity, each one pointing to a change in the Cons utional order. First, we had Stein’s recount effort, justified in part by a(n unproven) theory that “Russian hacking” had affected the vote tallies. (Recall that 50% of Clinton voters believe this, although no evidence has ever been produced for it, it’s technically infeasible at scale, and statistically improbable.) Since the “Russian hacking” theory was derived from intelligence not shown to the public, the change to the Cons utional order would be that the Intelligence Community (IC) would gain a veto over the legitimacy of a President during a transfer of power; veto power that would be completely unaccountable, since IC sources and methods would not be disclosed. Second, we had the (hilariously backfired) campaign to have “faithless electors” appoint somebody other than Trump to be President. Here again, the change in the Cons utional order was exactly the same, as (Clintonite) electors clamored to be briefed by the IC on material that would not be shown to the public, giving the IC veto power over the appointment of a President after the vote tallies had been certified. Third, we had the IC’s JAR report, which in essence accused the President-elect of treason (a capital offense). Here again the publicly available evidence of that quite sloppy report has been shredded, so in essence we have an argument from IC authority that secret evidence they control disqualifies the President elect, so the change in the Cons utional order is the same. Fourth, we have the “Golden Showers” report, which again is an argument from IC authority, and so again gives the IC veto power over a President appointed by the Electoral College. Needless to say, once we give the IC veto power over a President before the vote is tallied, and before the electoral college votes, and after the electoral college votes but before the oath of office and the Inaugural, we’re never going to be able to take it back. This is a crossing the Rubicon moment. Now, you can say this is unique, not normal, an exceptional case, but “sovereign is he who decides on the exception” (Nazi legal theorist Carl Schmidt). And who then is the sovereign? The IC. Is that what liberals want?
"it’s technically infeasible at scale, and statistically improbable"
nope, Repugs did it in OH '04 to give OH to dubya after Kerry had been way ahead all evening. The tally reporting stopped completely for 2 or 3 hours. When it started, dubya won OH.
"The IC. Is that what liberals want?"
No, but that's what we always have.
There's no countervailing power to the IC, no check/balance, and damn little oversight by Congress. The IC is a unaccountable power.
Now this is more to the point.
The CIA made a decision to inform the sitting president and the president elect about this.
This is what is legit, not all the peeing. There needs to eventually be an explanation on why. How did they decide this was worthwhile? This is what I wrote about early on. We realize the CIA can't tell us everything, but this as it stands now is bizzare.
This has to eventually be explained.
Why did the CIA take this up with two very important people?
TSA-like posters are more incline to believe that 4chan made this up and that the CIA decided to trust some random guy with this information from that site, rather than trusting the agency and it's vetting process.
They decided to include this piece of information in the intelligence briefing for a reason and I'm willing to bet it goes beyond just the 4chan factor. The minute we start questioniong whether the CIA cant vet a place like 4chan properly is the minute we should all start to worry about our safety.
4Chan is like the lowest denominator of the internet. A joke site known for trolling.
Could have been to make the allegations "newsworthy" enough to be reported, if you believe this is the IC getting revenge.
DNI Statement:
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsro...nt-elect-trump
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511
January 11, 2017
DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump
This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.
We also discussed the private security company do ent, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this do ent is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this do ent is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.
President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.
James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
Crow now being served.
The thing that is worrisome to me is we could possibly have an incredibly weak president on our hands. It may become very easy to discredit him via a number of different power structures including the IC. This is how other en ies within the government can greatly weaken any president but this one may be extraordinarily ripe. It's the same thing the other way when Obama is continually denied by Congress. He can attempt to use this intransigence to make the presidency too powerful. I don't see why both parties don't get alarmed by this. Maybe they just see an immediate cause, not how it changes power long term.
Last edited by pgardn; 01-11-2017 at 11:08 PM.
Which is is why I called out Insanity Index's ridiculous flow chart. It's more important than his silly ramblings but he can't see it.
They CIA can always fall back on this.
The decision to inform Trump and Obama of this as opposed to hundreds other " we have learned " . If the CIA says they took this apparently singly British origin stuff and stamped it important why?
Did this agent give a whole lot of other stuff that turned out to be valid in the same report or what? They really can go further without compromising security I would think. The CIA needs to start following Insanity Index and giving his reports to all important government employees.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
