Trump is Wrong About the Intelligence Community

[sangha]

Are you stalking me? Lol.

I'm you're biggest fan!!

If I remember correctly, our intelligence community believed Iraq had WMDs...? I think everyone would agree that was a mistake of monumental proportions. I must admit, though, that I personally think they were correct.

Actually, the intelligence community did not believe Iraq had WMD's. bush*, cheney and others in the administration misportrayed the evidence as indicating Iraq had WMD's.

 

[Chomsky]

More than the Hillary/Clinton Foundation/Saudi Arabia et al link? The other guy was an paid for adviser doing paid for adviser work. There is no link there and it didn't even have anything to do with Putin, but with Yanukovych, so I'm not sure where you pulled Putin from. That's like saying there is a Putin link to Armani because the President in Estonia bought one of their suits.

Conversely, a foundation getting millions of dollar donated to it, that hasn't even filed the proper paperwork to be a legitimate foundation, and who's records of money received doesn't match what has been donated, is a much bigger concern than someone who was hired to do a job.

Yanukovych is an extremely close Putin crony, and attempted to assimilate the Ukraine back into Russia. He essentially was Putin's right-hand-man in the Ukraine. So much so, that when he was ousted from office and arrest warrants were issued, Putin pulled him back into Russia and gave him asylum.

And Manaforte was Yanukovych's political operator for many years. Manafort orchestrated Yanukovych's rise to power as the State Department was conducting operations to keep Yanukovych out of power due to his Putin connection. IOW, Trump's guy was working directly against the U.S. government in the Putin-U.S. fight over Ukarine's rule. Of course, when Yanukovych later fell & the side of democracy reigned in 2014, Putin just rushed in with military force shunning any appearances of the political maneuvers portrayed by Yanukovych & Manafort.

So to say there is no Manafort/Yanukovych/Putin connection, strikes me as naive or uninformed.

Now as to Hillary, you definitely have valid points with her and her foundation, which I also suspect is dirty as hell. As far back as around 1990 the Clinton's were taking Chinese money illegally! They got caught, returned the money, and managed to avoid a crippling scandal, though they got dinged a bit. I'm sure it hasn't stopped.

So now since it's become a topic here, we get to: "Who's blacker? The pot, or the kettle"?

Well, they both suck, but HRC has been doing this for decades, much of it from a position of power within the government. She's a known quantity. But she still sucks. Trump is the new guy, and an unknown and seemingly emotional and erratic. He might clean things up, or he might totally fudge-up and self destruct. He may suck far worse than we can ever imagine.

So who's it going to be? That is the question the country is now grappling with.

Good luck picking a winner.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Trump needs all the in-depth intel briefings he can possibly finagle.

TheDonald was totally unaware (Jul 31, 2016) that Russian forces are already in eastern Ukraine.

A stack of casino chips says Trump couldn't locate the ISIS capital of Raqqa on a map.

 

[Chomsky]

You may agree. But this isn't a Trump invention. It's been done every presidential cycle for many years. If people don't like it, then blame the Administration. The various agencies who would be involved in such briefings undoubtedly have NO authority on their own to do so.

No, this is not specifically about Trump at all, but it is being highlighted this cycle due to the screwed-up nature of both these candidates - with Trump being one, loose-lipped, lacking in control, and highly erratic.

My point here, is: "Why is this done at all"?

It seems an unnecessary risk.

 

[Chomsky]

But isn't that what Trump was implying by his comments? That he has enough understanding and firsthand experience with security and foreign affairs to have an opinion?

Would it also be appropriate for an incoming President to have some general familiarity with the current positions of the government?

I'm not familiar with Trump's comments, but only what I read in the article. My comments were specifically concerning why would we need to brief the candidates at all?

But if there's something you believe I need to know or would be interested in, I'm happy to look over a link.

--

As to your second question, I suppose an argument can be made for dispensing some general background information of a non-sensitive manner. I'm just not sure it's needed, and I definitely would see no need to dispense information if it were to be sensitive in nature.

 

[iguanaman]

More than the Hillary/Clinton Foundation/Saudi Arabia et al link? The other guy was an paid for adviser doing paid for adviser work. There is no link there and it didn't even have anything to do with Putin, but with Yanukovych, so I'm not sure where you pulled Putin from. That's like saying there is a Putin link to Armani because the President in Estonia bought one of their suits.

Conversely, a foundation getting millions of dollar donated to it, that hasn't even filed the proper paperwork to be a legitimate foundation, and who's records of money received doesn't match what has been donated, is a much bigger concern than someone who was hired to do a job.

Where is Yanukovych now? He's in Russia. He was Putin's pawn in the Ukraine and everybody but you knows it.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'm not even sure why a private-citizen candidate needs to get these briefings!

Surely there's enough time to bring them up-to-speed between the time they become President-elect and the inauguration. No?

The largest part of politics is knowing what NOT to say and that doubles in international politics. Based on the intelligence being demonstrated in this campaign I would say the need is even greater and raise the question whether Trump even understands the material.

Let's admit the obvious, Trump may be rich, but intelligent is not a word often used in the same sentence as his name. He's too stupid to be president; granted he may have more active brain cells than Gerry Ford, but that's condemning with faint praise.

 

[Chomsky]

Where is Yanukovych now? He's in Russia. He was Putin's pawn in the Ukraine and everybody but you knows it.

Your response was a hell of a lot more succinct than mine - I like it! :thumbs:

[mine is post #27]

 

[apdst]

I'm not even sure why a private-citizen candidate needs to get these briefings!

Surely there's enough time to bring them up-to-speed between the time they become President-elect and the inauguration. No?

So they're somewhat up-to-speed on events should they get elected.

 

[reinoe]

No, this is not specifically about Trump at all, but it is being highlighted this cycle due to the screwed-up nature of both these candidates - with Trump being one, loose-lipped, lacking in control, and highly erratic.

My point here, is: "Why is this done at all"?

It seems an unnecessary risk.

It was initiated because Truman didn't like the fact that he joined the presidency only find find out a bunch of nasty war-time surprises once he got into office.

 

[apdst]

Are you stalking me? Lol. If I remember correctly, our intelligence community believed Iraq had WMDs...? I think everyone would agree that was a mistake of monumental proportions. I must admit, though, that I personally think they were correct.

I remember the the left absolutely trashing the intelligence community during the Bush administration.

 

[joG]

I'm not even sure why a private-citizen candidate needs to get these briefings!

Surely there's enough time to bring them up-to-speed between the time they become President-elect and the inauguration. No?

For some the time would seem enough and others would need years. So don't begrudge Trump a few extra weeks.

 

[Helix]

candidates shouldn't get classified briefings unless something really serious is going on under the radar, and even in that case, the briefing should be so limited that they can't do anything with it other than to avoid talking **** about a sensitive situation. briefing Trump about anything classified is worse than briefing the National Enquirer.

 

[Chomsky]

It was initiated because Truman didn't like the fact that he joined the presidency only find find out a bunch of nasty war-time surprises once he got into office.

Now that's interesting.

But from early November to late January, would seem time enough to me.

Unless you're claiming this is done to let the candidate back-out of running?

 

[Fishking]

Yanukovych is an extremely close Putin crony, and attempted to assimilate the Ukraine back into Russia. He essentially was Putin's right-hand-man in the Ukraine. So much so, that when he was ousted from office and arrest warrants were issued, Putin pulled him back into Russia and gave him asylum

He didn't attempt to assimilate Ukraine back into Russia. What supposedly sparked off the riots was his refusal to sign a binding trade agreement with the EU that would shun Russia. Sorry, but a trade deal is not something you throw a revolution over, especially one where there was no attempt to do it legally. Did they do elections? No. Did they take him to court or hold some kind of impeachment proceeding? No. The overthrow was illegal and is illegitimate.

And Manaforte was Yanukovych's political operator for many years. Manafort orchestrated Yanukovych's rise to power as the State Department was conducting operations to keep Yanukovych out of power due to his Putin connection. IOW, Trump's guy was working directly against the U.S. government in the Putin-U.S. fight over Ukarine's rule. Of course, when Yanukovych later fell & the side of democracy reigned in 2014, Putin just rushed in with military force shunning any appearances of the political maneuvers portrayed by Yanukovych & Manafort.

So to say there is no Manafort/Yanukovych/Putin connection, strikes me as naive or uninformed.

Manaforte was a private contractor doing his job. I fail to see the problem there. The only problem I see in this statement was the U.S. interfering in the political process of another country. Weren't a bunch of people just complaining about Russia allegedly doing that with the DNC emails? No, democracy didn't reign in 2014. It died. Yunukovich was a democratically elected President who was then thrown out without even bothering to wait for the next elections. It was done with the backing of Neo-nazis who then went on to commit war crimes in eastern Ukraine. I'm very informed, and I don't operate off of double standards applied to one group but not to us. If you're getting your information from cable news then I'm afraid you're not getting a very full picture of the reality of the matter.

 

[Fishking]

Where is Yanukovych now? He's in Russia. He was Putin's pawn in the Ukraine and everybody but you knows it.

Yeah...he went somewhere where he wouldn't be abused by western powers. Shocking.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Yeah...he went somewhere where he wouldn't be abused by western powers. Shocking.

Yeah ... one of the few nations in Europe that ignores Interpol warrants

 

[Fishking]

Yeah ... one of the few nations in Europe that ignores Interpol warrants

Russia isn't in Europe.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russia isn't in Europe.

Crack those geography books.

Russia west of the Urals is in Europe. Russia east of the Urals is in Asia. Ukraine is the largest country totally within Europe.

Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s fugitive ex-president, just sailed into Volgograd on a triple-decker yacht

As I was saying, Yanukovych fled to one of the few European nations that ignores Interpol warrants.

 

[MaggieD]

No, this is not specifically about Trump at all, but it is being highlighted this cycle due to the screwed-up nature of both these candidates - with Trump being one, loose-lipped, lacking in control, and highly erratic.

My point here, is: "Why is this done at all"?

It seems an unnecessary risk.

I agree. Was it you who posted it should be done after there's a president-elect? I like that.

 

[ocean515]

I'm not familiar with Trump's comments, but only what I read in the article. My comments were specifically concerning why would we need to brief the candidates at all?

But if there's something you believe I need to know or would be interested in, I'm happy to look over a link.

--

As to your second question, I suppose an argument can be made for dispensing some general background information of a non-sensitive manner. I'm just not sure it's needed, and I definitely would see no need to dispense information if it were to be sensitive in nature.

Well his comments were provided in a link. Regardless, a degree of understanding of current standings and objectives makes sense for someone who may become President.

It is my understanding there is no vetting of candidates from a security standpoint. Once the President is elected and sworn in, the only thing they are subject to are laws pertaining to any other government employee with a eyes only level security clearance. That full level starts the moment they are sworn in.

The point is, judging someone as a security threat before being sworn in is pointless. Certainly they don't get the full Monty of briefings, but they should get something.

 

[reinoe]

Now that's interesting.

But from early November to late January, would seem time enough to me.

Unless you're claiming this is done to let the candidate back-out of running?

No. But from November to January it makes sense that the president-elect is focusing on transitioning into the White House.

 

[Chomsky]

He didn't attempt to assimilate Ukraine back into Russia. What supposedly sparked off the riots was his refusal to sign a binding trade agreement with the EU that would shun Russia. Sorry, but a trade deal is not something you throw a revolution over, especially one where there was no attempt to do it legally. Did they do elections? No. Did they take him to court or hold some kind of impeachment proceeding? No. The overthrow was illegal and is illegitimate.

If you don't think The Ukraine is being assimilated back into Russia, the invading Russian soldiers and Military Ops now present in the country would likely beg to differ.

To your second point: An arrest warrant was issued for Yanukovych - he fled to Russia, and Putin took him in. He never stood trial. He is a fugitive, of his own will.

Manaforte was a private contractor doing his job. I fail to see the problem there. The only problem I see in this statement was the U.S. interfering in the political process of another country. Weren't a bunch of people just complaining about Russia allegedly doing that with the DNC emails? No, democracy didn't reign in 2014. It died. Yunukovich was a democratically elected President who was then thrown out without even bothering to wait for the next elections. It was done with the backing of Neo-nazis who then went on to commit war crimes in eastern Ukraine. I'm very informed, and I don't operate off of double standards applied to one group but not to us. If you're getting your information from cable news then I'm afraid you're not getting a very full picture of the reality of the matter.

What???

In terms of United States Presidential briefings, you're going to equate U.S. support of an anti-Russia movement - with the Russian's hacking our political process? :doh

The U.S. President's duty is to the interests of the American People, not some new world order!

And before you try to sell me more crap on Paul Manafort's altruism, perhaps you may want to take a look at this recent development:

DP

Huffington: FBI Investigating U.S. Ties To Alleged Corruption By Former Ukraine President

[The article title states "U.S. ties", but Paul Manafort is a central figure. Also, Tony Podesta is as well. This is likely the real reason Manafort left the Trump campaign.]

 

[Fishking]

In terms of United States Presidential briefings, you're going to equate U.S. support of an anti-Russia movement - with the Russian's hacking our political process? :doh

You're right. It was a bad comparison. The DNC hack wasn't nearly as bad as what we've done in so many countries. I mean, the only reason the DNC emails were even a thing was because it exposed corruption in the political process. So, in reality, the hack didn't interfere with our political process, it just exposed the interference that was already going on.