Forty Two wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 12:02 pm
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
You want to know what I think? I'm glad you've finally admitted that Mueller has a counterintelligence investigation on his hands. You've been running and hiding every time I've mentioned it for the last few months.
That's not accurate. I pointed out it was initiated under the criminal regulations. That doesn't mean it's not also counterintelligence because Comey's investigation was under the rubric of both. Do you admit that the Rosenstein order activates the criminal regulations?
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for allegations or evidence from the intelligence agencies, why would you want to know what I think about that?
I'm not asking about what you think, as in what your opinion is based on the facts. I'm asking about what facts you know. Are you aware of whether there is an allegation or evidence of Trump wrongdoing relative to to the 2016 election? If so, what is it that you are aware of? That's the issue that's been bandied about in the press for the last 2 years. Will Trump be impeached or indicted for obstruction of justice because of his or his campaign's involvement with the 2016 election interference? There hasn't been any other reason offered for his impeachment or indictment, has there?
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
If a US person was the primary subject of an intelligence agency product, that would be goddamned irregular, and classified out of sight.
Was Trump the "primary subject" of Comey's investigation? Is he the "primary subject" now? Odd... the other thread was was all about telling me how he isn't, because the Comey and Mueller investigations are just about "Russian interference in the 2016 election" and they'll go after anyone involved, come what may - and Trump is "running when nobody is chasing." Does he look guilty because the guilty run when they are not chased? Or, is he the "primary subject" of the investigation and hence, being chased, and it is therefore, reasonable for him to be concerned about it?
It would, for sure, be "classified." But once again, the intelligence agencies can declare whatever they want classified - I have no control over it. But I don't believe them. Everything about the Snowdon thing was classified when he released it and the NSA lied about it, and they broke the law - was all classified. Whether the North Vietnamese attacked US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin was classified, and the US people were told to believe them. Rather unjustified belief, that.
Or, like when the intelligence folks said it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq had WMD - CIA director Tenet - and that was confirmed by a CIA deputy director Morell (a 33 year CIA guy) --
“When we wrote pieces for the president, the analysts wrote with authority on the [weapons of mass destruction] issue,” Morell writes. “This is why I personally never found fault with George Tenet’s alleged “slam dunk” comment.”
“The way the [intelligence] analysts talked and wrote about their judgments,” Morell adds, “would have led anyone to think it was a slam dunk— that is, that Saddam definitely had active WMD programs. No one ever said to me, [agency analyst Jami] Miscik, [ex-director John] McLaughlin, Tenet, [Condoleezza] Rice, or the president, ‘You know, there is a chance he might not have them.’ Such a statement would have gotten everyone’s attention,” Morell writes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in ... 302cf2b99e
The backup on that was "classified", of course - can't see it - sources and methods and such - you know, national security, so the citizens being asked to support action taken in conformity with the views of the intelligence community are told "here's what we think, but I can't show you what we base it on..." Not good enough for me.
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
If I was cleared at that level, I wouldn't tell you what I knew or even that I held such a clearance. You don't know squat about our intelligence agencies; that's what I think!
Not relevant. I'm not saying I know what they know. I'm saying the issue vague reports with "levels of confidence" and don't provide the facts to back it up. They, of course, say that we need clearances and only the top top guys can see the real information, but trust us it's there. So, when the politicians say we're going to war with X country because of those intelligence reports, you just have to trust that they know what they're doing.
I don't claim to know much about them - that's the problem. However, next time I'm told we need to go to war because a confidential/secret intelligence report says that so-and-so is up to no good in West Bumfuck, I for one am going to need to see the evidence. Too many times in my lifetime, they've been wrong and/or lied.
And they can publish a report like the 2017 Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" all they want, but I want to see what evidence they're basing it on. When I read the report, it is vague, it is based in some parts on "moderate" confidence of certain agencies, and it focuses most of its word-count on explaining why Putin had a preference for Trumpian policies, and the "propaganda" efforts on the part of Russians. The only thing mentioned that would even be criminal was hacking, and the details on that are conclusory and lacking (and from other sources, it seems that none of the systems supposedly "hacked" were turned over to the FBI or any other agency to inspect and do a forensic analysis, and it's hard to see what happened with a hand-held PDA device when someone is taking a hammer to it, or a computer system that is being deleted and bleach-bit wiped...you know, like with a cloth).
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
As for evidence of wrong doing by Trump or his campaign, you are asking a stupid question that proves nothing. DOJ doesn't release that kind of information during an ongoing investigation,
It's not a stupid question. I don't care when they choose to do what they do.
If they don't release the evidence, then I don't believe them. I find their allegation interesting. Like, when the cops arrest somebody and say he's the guy who dunnit. Fine. You say he dunnit. Now prove it. Oh, you're not duty-bound to tell me now because you have an ongoing investigation? Fine. Then as long as your investigation is ongoing, then I withhold my judgment and I'm not going to be outraged by any "conclusions" you seek to publish. And, don't publish conclusions you want me to believe, if you're not going to back them up. Oh, so and so is a big fat criminal, but you can't tell me why because of sources and methods? Oh, well, then. Carry on. I don't believe you. I might, when you release the information on which you base your conclusion.
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
so anyone who says they know such things is lying or leaking,
Yes, there have been tons of leaks - massive leaks. It's been a seive, with asshats like Adam Schiff leaking consistently stuff. Leaks with political spin. To do what? Get the public to believe certain things. Well, I'm tired of that kind of manipulation, and I am not going to believe it until I see persuasive evidence.
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
and the GOP twats who've been pushing this trope for months know it.
What trope? What is it that you know to be true?
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
The only real evidence we'll probably have until such time as Mueller's report is made public are "confessions" from the flaming idiots starring in this media circus.
Good - so we agree the only "real evidence" we have is at most "confessions from flaming idiots in this media circus." I choose not to believe them. What do you conclude from the flaming idiot evidence? Treason? Obstruction of justice? What? If not, then you and I are in agreement. If so, I can't wait to hear your argument.
Joe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:35 pm
So, now that you've admitted the counterintelligence aspect of Mueller's investigation, do you think it should be shut down?
Nope. Never said it should be shut down (from the outside). I think that it should end when Mueller is done.
Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? In particular, the last one above, where you say that the only real evidence we are likely to have until the close of the Mueller investigation is flaming idiot evidence. So, what do you conclude from the only evidence we've had so far? That Trum pdid something wrong? That he committed Treason? Obstruction? That someone in his campaign did?
Or, do you admit that there is no evidence (other than at most flaming idiot evidence) of such wrongdoing?
If you have seen more than flaming idiot evidence, then please explain what that is. But since you've already said the only evidence you're likely to see is flaming idiot evidence, I can't imagine you can say now that there is good evidence from which you can conclude Trump did something wrong relative to Russia in the 2016 campaign.