Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0
US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider
I think that this should have been a poll with a list of suspects, but I would always vote for the CIA. The CIA work outside USA borders for many years allied it with the HUGE Multinational USA Corporatons overseas and especially Latin America and Saudi Arabian interests. That makes the CIA and Big Money joined at the hip, so to speak. The CIA track record shows an absolute lack of ethical direction and a disregard for humanity. Repeatedly, not isolated events. "Banana Republics." Assassinations. Drug dealing. Disregard of Congressional directives and USA laws (Mena, Arkansas, among others). Banking fraud in Panama. Dope dealing with Noreiga and the Medellin cartel. Operation Gladio in the EU. Support of ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. Death squads in Iraq, Honduras, Guatamala, El Salvador, etc. Kidnapped the leader, Aristide, in Haiti. This is the short list of CIA atrocities because it keeps repeating itself. Enough said!
/
/
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0
US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider
I believe it exists, and has for a long time. I have no idea who controls it though. I don't think it's just Democrats or Republicans, but a mixture.
Maybe there should have been a poll but more general like, "Do you think government agencies operate outside the law and knowledge of elected officials." I've never made a poll though.
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0
US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider
Does anyone completely control them? We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
One of the few things the Trump administration is good for is that's it's highlighting this problem but it's frustrating to see that people don't care so long as it helps their team.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/...e-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html?_r=0
US intelligence agencies withhold sensitive information from Trump - Business Insider
There is no "Deep State" in the US. Period.Does anyone completely control them?
What are you smoking?We have examples of the CIA seemingly operating outside of their legal parameters and yet nothing came of it. Does anyone think that Obama ordered Dianne Feinstein to have her investigation monitored and people tried to be set up?
Did you fail to notice that Republicans don't believe Trump was put under surveillance? Trump got bitch-slapped by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and no Republicans in Congress are defending him.We have an organization who's history is full of things like supporting genocide (Guatemala), drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, coups to install dictators, illegally monitoring Senate panels and trying to sabotage them, and yet somehow it's inconceivable that these agencies may have monitored Trump and his campaign. I find the partisan blinders interesting, so long as it helps their own ends.
Oh, a specific agency? Definitely the CIA, IMO.
I think people might care about it more if Trump and co. could produce some evidence substantiating their suspicions.
As it is, most people just assume he's lying. For that he's got nobody but himself to blame.
So do you think Obama ordered the CIA to spy on Feinstein and the Senate panel that I linked in my story? If not, why didn't people go to jail?
There is no "Deep State" in the US. Period.
"Deep states" are the intelligence arms of authoritarian states like Egypt or Turkey. It doesn't refer to the bureaucrats that Trump blames for his own flaws.
What are you smoking?
Obama didn't give Feinstein orders. That's not how the Presidency works. The CIA, by the way, hates Feinstein for investigating them for Bush-era torture allegations. They are not doing anything on her behalf, let alone illegally conducting surveillance on election candidates.
Did you fail to notice that Republicans don't believe Trump was put under surveillance? Trump got bitch-slapped by the House and Senate intelligence committees, and no Republicans in Congress are defending him.
I might add that the nasty (and largely ineffective) things the CIA has done? They did them because Presidents gave the orders. Eisenhower approved the Iran coup and Bay of Pigs; JFK continued Bay of Pigs; Nixon ordered the Allende coup, and so on.
And since it's been illegal since the 1970s for the CIA to target Americans, what do you think they were going to do with any information they collected? They obviously didn't use it against him during the campaign, and they would be barred from using it in any legal proceeding. The only way they could really use that surveillance would be the FBI, and Comey is champing at the bit to say that it didn't happen.
The bottom line is that Trump is full of ****. He had no proof before he made the accusation. He had no proof after the accusation. He has now accused Britain of spying on him, based on no proof.
He is full. Of. ****. You do yourself no favors by defending his destructive deceptions.
I don't assume knowledge of CIA practices or protocols one way or another.
But I'd like to see some actual evidence that the Trump campaign was "monitored" by any of the federal agencies before I give this serious consideration.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
We have a large number of calculated leaks and some of Trump's campaign being monitored and recorded.
IF there was suspicion that Trump campaign members were in contact with Russia while Russian agents were actively seeking to undermine our electoral process, wouldn't it be appropriate for the federal intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on those communications?
Perhaps if the Trump administration would try honesty for a change, the leaks wouldn't be as numerous. :shrug:Except we have other examples to go off of. We have also had Trump dealing with a significant number of leaks that seems to be too numerous to be merely coincidental
Lots of interesting and very...deliberate, responses to some questions asked of Chief House Intel Republican Devin Nunes. Seems like there may be something here.
Perhaps if the Trump administration would try honesty for a change, the leaks wouldn't be as numerous. :shrug:
Also, using the standards Republican supporters created for Obama over the years, doesn't this thread suggest Trump is a weak leader that very few want to follow?
Much like Hillary's e-mails, the only way these leaks can be effective is if they highlight shady behavior. :shrug:Which doesn't change the fact that there are multiple high level felonies occurring at a rate that indicates possible charges of sedition happening.
The intelligence agencies work for America. Semantics aside, I have a genuine question for you.The intelligence agencies work for the President
Don't fall into the typical partisan nonsense that "the government" is some monolithic organization, all working towards the same goal (and it's partisans on both sides who believe that, when convenient). It's not. It's composed of individuals, all with individual agendas and beliefs.and it should be concerning to have them working against an elected President.
I disagree. If Edward Snowden taught us anything, it's that the issue of leaks vs. info contained within is really not a partisan issue. The responses to that situation were all over the map, from both parties.That should be very worrisome to anyone yet people shrug it off because it's helping their team at the moment.
Well, given that we were in the midst of an election and there was nothing on Weiner's device, I'd disagree this is beyond that (and I say that as someone who had absolutely no problem at all with what Comey did). But that doesn't really matter.I remember when people freaked out on Comey just for telling Congress that they found more Hillary emails on Weiner's computer so they had to investigate. This is way beyond that, yet it's being applauded.
30 minutes? It's getting late over here.
Can you give me some highlights... time stamps for the most interesting parts of this video.
One highlight is starting at 11:50 (little bit prior to give context to the next question) and then stopping at 15:00. This is a Democrat saying that there's no evidence of wrongdoing in the Trump campaign and that the only evidence of a a crime, and he states about it being serious, are the leaks themselves and that there was a decision somewhere up the chain to unmask the identity of Flynn.
Much like Hillary's e-mails, the only way these leaks can be effective is if they highlight shady behavior. :shrug:
The intelligence agencies work for America. Semantics aside,
I have a genuine question for you.
What do you find more concerning...lies and possible illegal behavior by the Trump administration (which the leaks have suggested) or the fact the leaks have happened? In other words, did you support Edward Snowden or the Obama Administration?
Genuine question.
Don't fall into the typical partisan nonsense that "the government" is some monolithic organization, all working towards the same goal (and it's partisans on both sides who believe that, when convenient). It's not. It's composed of individuals, all with individual agendas and beliefs.
The "intelligence community" is not working against the President. Are there some within the intelligence community who have released documents damaging to the credibility of the Trump Administration? Obviously. But don't mistake the actions of a few for the group as a whole.
I disagree. If Edward Snowden taught us anything, it's that the issue of leaks vs. info contained within is really not a partisan issue. The responses to that situation were all over the map, from both parties.
Well, given that we were in the midst of an election and there was nothing on Weiner's device, I'd disagree this is beyond that (and I say that as someone who had absolutely no problem at all with what Comey did). But that doesn't really matter.
Your times must be off... what we have at the 11:50-13:45 mark is simply Devin Nunes explaining why he doesn't think we need a special prosecutor.
Until 15:00
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?