hater: any time you have seen anonymous government sources quoted in the print media during your lifetime, mightn't that have been damage control, psyops and spooky influencing of public opinion?
no. Former intelligence heads lecturing US public daily on mainstream news networks = journalism is deadFormer intelligence heads criticize Donald Trump and suddenly journalism is dead.
fake newsA President who has to receive his intelligence reports in the form of crayon drawings
sure.
now answer my question.
Do you not think its a BAD thing for former intelligence agency bosses to be on daily mainstream "news" networks, winehole?
It's hilarious to see DJT stans crying about the breaking of political norms, but it's not incorrect to point that Brennan and Clapper have done so, and that might be a bad thing in some ways. I can't recall any other former intel chiefs who've criticized sitting presidents on TV, can you?Former intelligence heads criticize Donald Trump and suddenly journalism is dead.
A President who has to receive his intelligence reports in the form of crayon drawings is unpopular with the people in charge of that intelligence, god forbid they be allowed to criticize him on television.
Translation: "DA JOOOS"
-------------------------------edit-------------------------
OP was not actually about jewish conspiracy theories, but was a jewish news website. This bit of derision was undeserved.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-06-2019 at 03:55 PM.
Having expert commentators on the air for news segments didn't begin with the Trump Administration. Should we bar former CIA/FBI officials from ever appearing on television? You want Jake Tapper and Don Lemon doing these segments solo?
This is only a problem for you and OP now because they are almost always critical of the current administration. You prefer punditry without qualification.
I can certainly see how it could be a bad thing and have already said so.
That said, guys like Clapper and Brennan qua private citizens have free speech rights. Hard to see how they could be prevented from opining on TV as long as cable TV keeps inviting them to do so.
this is a bad thing on any administration. like the politico article said, pretty clearly too:
the downside of outsourcing national security coverage to the TV spies is obvious. They aren’t in the business of breaking news or uncovering secrets. Their first loyalty—and this is no slam—is to the agency from which they hail. Imagine a TV network covering the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin to appreciate the current peculiarities.
oh yeah but Politico is a Trumpstan right?
Former heads of the CIA and DNI being hired as analysts for CNN and MSNBC is most definitely something new. Setting up a townhall for the disgraced former head of the FBI, who was fired and currently under investigation, so he can plead his case is definitely something new. It’s all an attempt to cover up and confuse the public about how the media was complicit in teaming with the intelligence community to spread the Russiagate hoax and hurt Trump.
I’m still waiting for your list of former heads of intelligence agencies being hired as cable news analysts.
Criticized?Brennan accused Trump of treason.
You might want to finish your coffee and open your eyes wide enough to read the masthead, RG.Translation: "DA JOOOS"
Tablet is a Jewish run, Jewish facing current events magazine.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-06-2019 at 10:26 AM.
Did you read my link above? Heads of intel agencies hhave been fiddling about in the media for 70 years.
Retired intel chiefs are not intel chiefs. They are private citizens and can say what they damn well please.
this is my favorite Phil Mudd moment btw
Private citizens are fully within their rights to say whatever they want about any public figure.Criticized?
When did Brennan accuse DJT of treason? Have you got a specific cite or cites for that?
I wouldn't know. It's a political norm that I don't frankly think is necessary, seems the damage one can do as a director of intelligence is far greater than the potential damage of answering questions on news programs viewed by a fraction of the population. Those may have made more sense as norms when we had three news networks.
Negroponte has been critical of Trump as well. Where some may see this as a coordinated bipartisan effort by the deep state to delegitimize a sitting President who isn't playing their game, I think more likely it's that they see the aimlessness of remaining silent while a clown makes a mockery of our highest office and the work they once did.
To be clear, I think the norm of NATSEC chiefs keeping their lips buttoned during and after their service was a good one, but its just a norm, and as we've all seen, norms can change with a swiftness.
I'd rather they get TV gigs than lobbying gigs, tbh.
Trump has gone out of his way to insult the spy agencies and the NATSEC establishment in a very blunt and very public way. It only makes sense that former government figures would want to defend their public service and their agencies.
Exactly.
Hate Trump. But to be quite honest, if someone starts a fake rumor that I got a bunch of hookers to pee on me and thus why I colluded with Russia, I'd talk about them at every chance as well. It only makes sense.
Blame Buzzfeed.
The FBI didn't publicize the Steele dossier, and all the media outlets but Buzzfeed who had the dossier in 2016 had enough respect for their own profession not to, because it contains uncorroborated and highly inflammatory assertions.
Meanwhile, the FBI did publicize two investigations during 2016 -- one of them directly based on oppo research -- against Hillary Clinton.
You don't hear hater or TSA crying about that. Small mystery there, no principles, but purely whose ox is gored.
buzzfeed did not create the dossier out of thin air.
it was created by Brit/US intelligence agents or former. and floated among US/Brit intelligence contacts for a while before being leaked. Let's not forget it was also used to issue FISA warrant to tap Trump tower. it was then floated to the many media organizations and eventually one of them published it (with US intelligence approval as they would not publish it without approval)
Lot of inference and supposition there, hater.
Also some BS: we can look at the Carter Page FISA applications and see that the dossier was neither the origin of nor the main support for the applications.
Did you read the Jack Goldsmith Twitter thread on this? It demolishes your copped straight from cable TV narrative.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
