Amused to Death
Footballguy
Not sure I'd trust any of those guys, I'll go with Putin.Looks like a fake news site.
Not sure I'd trust any of those guys, I'll go with Putin.Looks like a fake news site.
If nothing else, the fits he's going to throw when he finds out he doesn't have as much power as he thinks should be pretty entertaining. Assuming of course he IS held in check.I tend to think you are right. He just can't understand the audacity of some people to actually disagree with him on something and not cave. That's what happens when you live in an echo chamber.
They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info. It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence. The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input. This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.I don't believe the "specific" info has been made public. I believe they have been presented to Trump.
Here's 16 of the agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Exactly, so you should trust Putin. And that Wikilieaks guy - he pinky swore Russia didn't give him any info.They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info. It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence. The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input. This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.
pretty sure that if you want detailed info, you have to either have Top Secret clearance or won a national election. Either one.They have made public that they intercept communications between high ranking Russian officials - which gives away a lot to an adversary, but no detailed info. It's all politicized conjecture with no evidence. The 17 number is meant to sound impressive, but I doubt agencies like Coast Guard Intelligence had much if any input. This is WMD/Benghazi/Sony hack etc all over again.
Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or other cyber-protection systems and then extracts data. Our own considerable experience, plus the rich detail revealed by Edward Snowden, persuades us that, with NSA's formidable trace capability, it can identify both sender and recipient of any and all data crossing the network.
Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization — on a thumb drive, for example — and gives it to someone else, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did. Leaking is the only way such data can be copied and removed with no electronic trace.
Because NSA can trace exactly where and how any "hacked" emails from the Democratic National Committee or other servers were routed through the network, it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack, as other reporting suggests. From a technical perspective alone, we are convinced that this is what happened.
That's why Trump's just gonna fire all of their incompetent asses and do his own investigations. Or rely on Putin's; his so much better than ours anyway.A couple of fomrmer intelligence officers ripping the IC
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html
be careful citing articles written before the IC's report to Obama/congress/Trump was released. This article pre-dates that.A couple of fomrmer intelligence officers ripping the IC
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-hacking-intelligence-20170105-story.html
Larry Johnson is a joke.Former analyst Larry C Johnson calls the latest report a "joke"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump
The point about NSA is still excellent, and nothing signifigant came out in the declassified that invalidates the McGovern/Binney analysis.be careful citing articles written before the IC's report to Obama/congress/Trump was released. This article pre-dates that.
There's a reason he's a former. He was very over rated and couldn't hack it. Sad.Former analyst Larry C Johnson calls the latest report a "joke"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump
How many of these former agents have actually seen the classified report? I have no idea if they have or not.The point about NSA is still excellent, and nothing signifigant came out in the declassified that invalidates the McGovern/Binney analysis.
Former analyst Larry C Johnson calls the latest report a "joke"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751337/CIA-analyst-hacking-claims-Hilary-Clinton-discredited-Putin-US-election-Donald-Trump
Speaking to Kremlin-funded news agency Russia Today - which itself was the subject of seven pages of the intelligence report - Mr Johnson said: “It’s designed to smear Trump.
“I don’t think they’re hiding anything because they don’t have anything. These are ‘or and how’ intelligence estimates as opposed to an intelligence analysis based on fact. There’s no fact underlying this. There are analytical assumptions.
“This thing it’s a joke. If I’m a Russian intelligence analyst, with one of your intelligence services, I would be suspicious and think ‘What are the Americans up to? They really can’t be this stupid.’ And let me just reassure the folks on your side of the ledger – yeah, they actually are.”
I'm positing that anyone or anything (including legit media) citing Russia Today automatically gets disqualified. Immediate red X.Rove! said:Are you positing that they coerced him to say that?
I was citing Larry Johnson. Just because RT happened to broadcast his assessment doesn't change who the source is.I'm positing that anyone or anything (including legit media) citing Russia Today automatically gets disqualified. Immediate red X.
I don't know who Larry Johnson is. I mean, there was a Larry Johnson who played for UNLV and then Charlotte, and there was a Larry Johnson who played for the Chiefs (I remember something about him and diapers), but I don't think either of these guys are the one you are referring to. I do know who RT is, and I know they aren't exactly a disinterested bystander.I was citing Larry Johnson. Just because RT happened to broadcast his assessment doesn't change who the source is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._JohnsonI don't know who Larry Johnson is. I mean, there was a Larry Johnson who played for UNLV and then Charlotte, and there was a Larry Johnson who played for the Chiefs (I remember something about him and diapers), but I don't think either of these guys are the one you are referring to. I do know who RT is, and I know they aren't exactly a disinterested bystander.
He carries no more weight than the dozens of analysts who worked on it. In fact I'd say he carries significantly less weight, since he hasn't worked for an intelligence agency in close to a quarter-century.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson
hes not perfect (nobody is), but his experience and knowledge carry a lot of weight
But has he seen the actual classified report? The stuff upon which the conclusions have been based?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson
hes not perfect (nobody is), but his experience and knowledge carry a lot of weight
I've seen House of Cards. These things happen.Do you all think Trump would let Putin have a go at his wife if he asked? Are we sure they already have not?
Trump's relationship with Putin and Russia is nothing to be concerned about at all. Nope. Nothing to see here.I'm sure Russia would never use this information to manipulate U.S. policy.
This is bigly.This should come as no surprise to anybody. CNN reporting Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
Also in the story: "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."This should come as no surprise to anybody. CNN reporting Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html
If true, this is disqualifying IMO.Also in the story: "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."
Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that doesn't happen.https://twitter.com/20committee/status/818948112488296449
"Once the full story of Trump's collusion with Russian intelligence comes to light -- it will, soon -- he will not be able to be POTUS."
This is one of those uncomfirmed allegations that most people strongly suspected was going on. Been hinted at for months.Also in the story: "The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials."
I expect that will get canceledPress conference tomorrow should be pretty epic.
Front page news at CNN....CNN: INTEL CHIEFS PRESENTED TRUMP WITH CLAIMS OF RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO COMPROMISE HIM