The Intelligence Community - Champion of Democracy

[pErvinalia]

So why aren't the intelligence services disbanded if it's so obvious they are a deep state?

[L'Emmerdeur]

But, sure, they're above reproach. Accept their reports at face value, without seeing the back up evidence (because, you know, national security, sources, and methods - lions and tigers and bears, o my!).

Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said?

[Joe]

But, sure, they're above reproach. Accept their reports at face value, without seeing the back up evidence (because, you know, national security, sources, and methods - lions and tigers and bears, o my!).

Why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I said?

Because he can't answer your criticism honestly and preserve any pretense of having a credible argument. He has to either put forth a strawman to rebut, or not respond to your post. It's pretty pathetic.

[pErvinalia]

He constantly does this. He argues against what he sees as the left media, usually assuming we have the same arguments as them. I really wish he's actually try and understand and address our arguments and not address the media who aren't members of the forum and won't ever see what he writes.

[Joe]

Well, if he addressed the arguments put forth on this topic, he'd have to admit the Mueller investigation is both prudent and justified.

Where's the fun in that for a Republican?

[Forty Two]

Well Forty Two, your "no evidence exists" position is an old right wing talking point that's been repeated over and over. As for " What else is there? Not much," that's more GOP pablum you're regurgitating. You've had the counterintelligence aspect of the Mueller probe shown to you enough that it's obvious you are either woefully brain damaged as Seabass suggests, or simply lying because it destroys your arguments.
[/quote]

What's the evidence? Saying "there's a counterintelligence aspect to the Mueller investigation..." is not evidence. What is the evidence?

[Scot Dutchy]

The closer Mueller gets the more squealing there will be.

[Joe]

Well Forty Two, your "no evidence exists" position is an old right wing talking point that's been repeated over and over. As for " What else is there? Not much," that's more GOP pablum you're regurgitating. You've had the counterintelligence aspect of the Mueller probe shown to you enough that it's obvious you are either woefully brain damaged as Seabass suggests, or simply lying because it destroys your arguments.

What's the evidence? Saying "there's a counterintelligence aspect to the Mueller investigation..." is not evidence. What is the evidence?

Same as we have discussed before, and you have even conceded. Acting AG Rosenstein's order 3915-2017 and the referenced testimony of then FBI Director James Comey provide the evidence.

Remember?

Further, I haven't disputed that the mandate purports to delegate a counterintelligence investigation AND a criminal investigation to the Special Counsel.

And you demand evidence from the intelligence community. Are you sure you just don't recall it?

[Forty Two]

Well Forty Two, your "no evidence exists" position is an old right wing talking point that's been repeated over and over. As for " What else is there? Not much," that's more GOP pablum you're regurgitating. You've had the counterintelligence aspect of the Mueller probe shown to you enough that it's obvious you are either woefully brain damaged as Seabass suggests, or simply lying because it destroys your arguments.

What's the evidence? Saying "there's a counterintelligence aspect to the Mueller investigation..." is not evidence. What is the evidence?

Same as we have discussed before, and you have even conceded. Acting AG Rosenstein's order 3915-2017 and the referenced testimony of then FBI Director James Comey provide the evidence.

Evidence of what?

The authorization to appoint a special counsel is not evidence that Trump or anyone else did anything wrong/illegal. Neither is Comey's testimony. What law did they say was broken? By whom? The answer is - none, and nobody -- obviously, yet. Maybe they have evidence. We don't know. But if you think you've seen it, please, by all means, set it out. There's evidence of what? Done by whom? What is that evidence? Is there a document? Is there a witness to something?

Note, in that previous conversation, the discussion was whether Trump and the campaign were being "chased" -- why are they running? Nobody's chasing them in particular.... that's what I was told in that previous conversation. I pointed out that the Comey testimony and the AG appointment specifically references Trump and the Trump campaign, so they are a target. And, of course, we discussed the different regulations which were and were not activated in the Rosenstein document.

What was not put forth in that exchange was evidence of wrongdoing in relation to Russian interference with the 2016 campaign by Trump or any Trump campaign personel.

Remember?

Further, I haven't disputed that the mandate purports to delegate a counterintelligence investigation AND a criminal investigation to the Special Counsel.

And you demand evidence from the intelligence community. Are you sure you just don't recall it?

Yes, of course I demand evidence from the intelligence community for whatever allegation they're making. the intelligence community has not ever said that Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign violated an law or committed any crime. Have they? Where? Comey didn't. The appointment document you linked to doesn't.

[Forty Two]

Well, if he addressed the arguments put forth on this topic, he'd have to admit the Mueller investigation is both prudent and justified.

Where's the fun in that for a Republican?

Whether it's prudent or justified is irrelevant. Innocent people are from time to time investigated by law enforcement, etc. The fact of an investigation is not evidence of wrongdoing, just like the fact that someone was arrested says nothing about their guilt. It's not evidence.

[Joe]

Well Forty Two, your "no evidence exists" position is an old right wing talking point that's been repeated over and over. As for " What else is there? Not much," that's more GOP pablum you're regurgitating. You've had the counterintelligence aspect of the Mueller probe shown to you enough that it's obvious you are either woefully brain damaged as Seabass suggests, or simply lying because it destroys your arguments.

What's the evidence? Saying "there's a counterintelligence aspect to the Mueller investigation..." is not evidence. What is the evidence?

Same as we have discussed before, and you have even conceded. Acting AG Rosenstein's order 3915-2017 and the referenced testimony of then FBI Director James Comey provide the evidence.

Evidence of what?

Mueller's counterintelligence investigation. We have not yet established that you agree there is one. Do you?

The authorization to appoint a special counsel is not evidence that Trump or anyone else did anything wrong/illegal. Neither is Comey's testimony. What law did they say was broken? By whom? The answer is - none, and nobody -- obviously, yet. Maybe they have evidence. We don't know. But if you think you've seen it, please, by all means, set it out. There's evidence of what? Done by whom? What is that evidence? Is there a document? Is there a witness to something?

Note, in that previous conversation, the discussion was whether Trump and the campaign were being "chased" -- why are they running? Nobody's chasing them in particular.... that's what I was told in that previous conversation. I pointed out that the Comey testimony and the AG appointment specifically references Trump and the Trump campaign, so they are a target. And, of course, we discussed the different regulations which were and were not activated in the Rosenstein document.

What was not put forth in that exchange was evidence of wrongdoing in relation to Russian interference with the 2016 campaign by Trump or any Trump campaign personel.

Remember?

Further, I haven't disputed that the mandate purports to delegate a counterintelligence investigation AND a criminal investigation to the Special Counsel.

And you demand evidence from the intelligence community. Are you sure you just don't recall it?

Yes, of course I demand evidence from the intelligence community for whatever allegation they're making. the intelligence community has not ever said that Trump or anyone in the Trump campaign violated an law or committed any crime. Have they? Where? Comey didn't. The appointment document you linked to doesn't.

Why would the intelligence agencies share that with you?

[Brian Peacock]

I just goes round and round like this, again and again, round and round, again and again... I guess some people just feel entitled to know about what stage the ongoing investigations are at. And if you feel entitled to be in the loop then it's easy to denigrate the work (or existence) of those you see as excluding you.

Trump has made this all about him, a #WITCHHUNT, and he and those investing in him have sought to push the security and operation of US democracy aspects of the investigations, the very reason for their existence, way down the prioroty list - so far down in fact that they're indistinguishable from an irrelevance. If this isn't resolved then no American is going to trust the result of any election ever again - and the thought of that leads to a very unsettling place.

[Forty Two]

Evidence of what?

Mueller's counterintelligence investigation. We have not yet established that you agree there is one. Do you?

Do I agree that there is a Mueller investigation which is styled both as a criminal investigation, and also a counterintelligence investigation, sure.

However, evidence that there "is" a counterintelligence investigation isn't what I'm asking for evidence of here - what I'm asking for evidence of is wrongdoing on the part of Trump or the Trump campaign in relation to Russia's activities surrounding the 2016 election. Are you aware of any evidence of that? If so, was any of that evidence published by an intelligence agency?

Why would the intelligence agencies share that with you?

That's a different question. They would share the information with the American people and with legislators, because if they are going to say that they have evidence of the President of US engaged in wrongdoing with Russia relative to the 2016 election, then it would be helpful to the people to believe that extraordinarily serious allegation if there was some evidence available. Otherwise, they're asking us to believe something without evidence.

Also, have they even alleged that Trump or the Trump campaign engaged in wrongdoing with Russia in relation to the 2016 campaign? If so, which agency alleged it and on what basis? Do you know?

I think we need to establish whether you think that there is an allegation or evidence from an intelligence agency that Trump or the Trump campaign engaged in any wrongdoing in relation to the 2016 campaign. Do you think that? If so, on what basis? What's the allegation, and what's the evidence?

[Forty Two]

I just goes round and round like this, again and again, round and round, again and again... I guess some people just feel entitled to know about what stage the ongoing investigations are at.

Not the issue. I claim no entitlement to know. I claim the right and the justification to not believe an allegation until there is evidence. I think it's fairly reasonable to do that. If they say I can't know what the evidence is, that's fine. They're not entitled to my acceptance of or belief in the truth of their allegations, though, nor is it "treasonous" to not accept or believe them.

Moreover, no intelligence agency has alleged wrongdoing on the part of the Trump campaign or Trump in relation to the 2016 election. It's not even alleged. I certainly am justified in not believing an allegation that hasn't been made by them.

And if you feel entitled to be in the loop then it's easy to denigrate the work (or existence) of those you see as excluding you.

I never claimed an entitlement to be in the loop. I don't expect to know what the CIA is doing. But if they were to say that there is a national security need to depose the President of Chile, I would not believe them unless they showed me the evidence. I'm a citizen of the country, and I am not beholden to the CIA, nor am I required to believe things they say. Further, there is plenty of reason to suspect the truth and accuracy of what they say.

Trump has made this all about him, a #WITCHHUNT, and he and those investing in him have sought to push the security and operation of US democracy aspects of the investigations, the very reason for their existence, way down the prioroty list - so far down in fact that they're indistinguishable from an irrelevance. If this isn't resolved then no American is going to trust the result of any election ever again - and the thought of that leads to a very unsettling place.

There certainly is a lot of reason for him to be concerned about it. The Rosenstein order refers to the Trump campaign, and nobody else's campaign (even though the Russians posted pro Hillary ads, and organized pro Hillary rallies, too). The media focus has been 100% on Trump, and every allegation about the Russian interference is placed in the lap of the Trump campaign in the media.

I've pointed out that the Mueller appointment was brought under the criminal regulations. There is a criminal investigation aspect of the investigation, and it's pretty obvious that the investigation is is targeted toward Trump. This is not a neutral commission, like the 9/11 Commission, which investigated after 9/11/01. That's the kind of commission I've said before should have been created.

[Joe]

Well, Forty Two is certainly going round and round, repeating the same tired nonsense, expecting folks here to have forgotten how roundly debunked it was previously. I don't believe his insistence on evidence is anything more than another deflection from the main points you mention. It really is an old GOP talking point.

It's really sad, but is also a continuation of a longstanding weakness in US politics. The oppositional nature of our two party system often makes controversy out what should be common cause. Trump's idiocy doesn't help.