Will you accept the election results?

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;

The intelligence agencies aren't political. They exist no matter which party is governing.

The President appoints the head of the CIA.

So what? That doesn't make the CIA political. I'd be almost certain that it is illegal for the intelligence agencies to be political.

[Forty Two]

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;

The intelligence agencies aren't political. They exist no matter which party is governing.

The President appoints the head of the CIA.

So what? That doesn't make the CIA political. I'd be almost certain that it is illegal for the intelligence agencies to be political.

What are you talking about? The head of the CIA's boss is the President. Are you seriously suggesting that the President never seeks to exert power to get what he wants from the head of the CIA, his subordinate?

I don't care what word you use to describe it, but one would have to be pretty naive to think that a President wouldn't further his agenda by getting a favorable report from the CIA, and to the extent that the CIA can help while also having plausible credibility, they will do so. And, the CIA is in the business of secrecy, lies and double-dealing.

Since when is the CIA above reproach?

[pErvinalia]

Anyway, the reason I remain skeptical is:

(a) there is a clear political motive to pin it on the Russians and link Trump to the Russians;

The intelligence agencies aren't political. They exist no matter which party is governing.

The President appoints the head of the CIA.

So what? That doesn't make the CIA political. I'd be almost certain that it is illegal for the intelligence agencies to be political.

What are you talking about? The head of the CIA's boss is the President. Are you seriously suggesting that the President never seeks to exert power to get what he wants from the head of the CIA, his subordinate?

What the fuck are YOU talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA should act illegally just because the President asks them to?!? The CIA isn't a political organisation. Just because it's good for the Dems to pin the hack on the Russians doesn't mean that the CIA would do it. It would be illegal for them to lie to congress.

I don't care what word you use to describe it, but one would have to be pretty naive to think that a President wouldn't further his agenda by getting a favorable report from the CIA, and to the extent that the CIA can help while also having plausible credibility, they will do so.

It's not naive at all. The CIA doesn't work for the president, regardless of whether he appoints the head. The head doesn't write the report or do the research. You can't have worked for many organisations if you think the head of the organisation gets involved in the day to day business.

Since when is the CIA above reproach?

It's not. It's you and your reasoning that is being reproached. The idea that the bureaucracy would regularly lie for one side of politics is nonsensical, given that politics changes while the bureaucracy doesn't. Not to mention that the security services traditionally get along better with conservatives than the less conservative.

[Hermit]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

[Forty Two]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a conservative. I wouldn't trust the CIA on faith if you paid me.

It's the progressives here that are talking about how big the US's problems must be if we can't trust the CIA. It's the progressives here who are suggesting that it's legitimate for the CIA to withhold evidence under the rubric of "protecting sources and methods."

In the history of the US, the Democratic Party has not been at all less prone to use intelligence services for nefarious purposes. Look at John F. Kennedy. He surreptitiously tried to invade Cuba via the CIA without even notifying Congress. The Democratic Administration orchestrated, with the CIA, the Gulf of Tonkin fake incident which was used as the pretext for escalating the war in Vietnam. Do we honestly think the current Administration are a bunch of angels that would never do anything like that? How much material does Wikileaks have to leak before we sea the current administration for just as scummy as the rest?

[Svartalf]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

Font's of unbiased information, like when they invented WMD's in Iraq just to please pdt shrub?

[pErvinalia]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

There's definitely some schaudenfreude (spelling) about it. But if someone is going to posit conspiracy theories then they should at least come up with some reasonable argumentation for why it is occurring. There's simply no reasonable explanation that I've heard for why the CIA etc would lie for a president to tar his successor in the last couple of months of the former's presidency.

[Brian Peacock]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations? The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

If that is this, then it necessarily follows that no declarative statement that the Russians did it can be made. Thus, the people declaring the accusation that Russia did it to be true have nothing but wishful thinking to bolster their assertions.

However, I haven't heard them say that they have definitive evidence which cannot be disclosed due to the fact that it would, in this case, compromise intelligence operations.

The "if the security services cannot be trusted" bit is not an "if." Security services cannot be trusted when they aren't required to back up their claims. It's unfortunate, but true.

I still think you're expecting the security services to support their claims by meeting your conditions to your satisfaction - basically, "Tell us your secrets." You know that they'll have to justify their report's conclusions in front of one or more congressional committee, but you probably still wont get the kind of evidence you seem to require even then. This wholly boils down to a trust issue, trust in the security services and the systems of democratic oversight at play. Would you be raising the same points and issues, on the same basis, if the report had said that no link between the Kremlin and hacking was found? Somehow I think not.

[Jason]

Trump quotes Assange in tweet casting doubt on claims of Russian hacking

President-elect Donald Trump quoted WikiLeaks founder and fugitive Julian Assange in a message on Twitter Wednesday morning questioning the Russians’ role in hacking Democrats’ e-mails.

Trump’s tweet came the morning after he cast doubt on a U.S. intelligence briefing on Russian hacking that he is expected to receive later this week.

“Julian Assange said ‘a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta’ - why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!” Trump said Wednesday on Twitter, referring to the hacking of e-mails connected to the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, who served as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. His message comes a day after Fox News aired part of an interview of Assange by Sean Hannity, which was taped at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... e33486061/

Trump's full-disclosure briefing is scheduled for Friday, so if he changes his tune we'll know there is actual and compelling evidence the intelligence agencies are not letting on that they have.

[Hermit]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

There's definitely some schaudenfreude (spelling) about it. But if someone is going to posit conspiracy theories then they should at least come up with some reasonable argumentation for why it is occurring. There's simply no reasonable explanation that I've heard for why the CIA etc would lie for a president to tar his successor in the last couple of months of the former's presidency.

I don't know where Schadenfreude comes in, but the role reversal is remarkable. I mean, he who is not, and has never been a conservative, and proves it by supporting Trump is casting aspersions on the competence and integrity of the CIA, while the self-proclaimed armchair anarchist is dubious about the CIA acting illegally just because the President asks them to. Had Patrick Cook come up with a scenario like that 35 years ago when he was the chief satirist and cartoonist at the National Times, I would have said he's getting a bit too desperate for ideas. Now that I'm not so callow, I laugh about it. Stops me from crying.

The worst thing is that both of you are so certain about how rational you are. FFS, now I'm laughing again.

[Forty Two]

What the fuck are YOU talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA should act illegally just because the President asks them to?!? The CIA isn't a political organisation.

The CIA doesn't act illegally? Come on pErvin. What are you even saying?

Further, their action is not necessarily illegal, or clearly illegal. They are good at making sure they have plausible deniability and cover. That's their job. Their spies, in the business of lies.

Just because it's good for the Dems to pin the hack on the Russians doesn't mean that the CIA would do it. It would be illegal for them to lie to congress.

Yet, they have lied to Congress. I didn't say that it would be good for the Dems to pin the hack on the Russians, therefore the CIA did it. It is a possibility, that's all. We have no evidence that it was the Russians. The report doesn't prove anything. That's the key. The motive to fudge it on the Russians is just that, a motive. Plenty of people with motives don't do the deed. Motive is a reason to suspect, not convict.

I don't care what word you use to describe it, but one would have to be pretty naive to think that a President wouldn't further his agenda by getting a favorable report from the CIA, and to the extent that the CIA can help while also having plausible credibility, they will do so.

It's not naive at all. The CIA doesn't work for the president, regardless of whether he appoints the head. The head doesn't write the report or do the research. You can't have worked for many organisations if you think the head of the organisation gets involved in the day to day business.

The notion that the CIA can't fudge a report, or issue a report for a political purpose, is absurd. Of course they have.

[JimC]

That 42 is just a crazy marxist radical, casting aspersions against the defenders of liberty in the CIA!

[Brian Peacock]

The security services are a branch of government and an arm of the state. Nobody can deny that they fulfil a political function. Acknowledging this does not diminish their importance or their work. What are we supposed to expect from the security services - that they be objective, infallible, all-knowing deities?

[pErvinalia]

For at least the past half century conservatives have regarded organisations like the CIA, the NSA and the FBI as fonts of unbiased information, while progressives kept insisting that they can and have been utilised as tools to promote nefarious ends by reactionary governments. Now that the outgoing government looks much more progressive than what is to come, the roles have been reversed. I can't stop laughing about this.

There's definitely some schaudenfreude (spelling) about it. But if someone is going to posit conspiracy theories then they should at least come up with some reasonable argumentation for why it is occurring. There's simply no reasonable explanation that I've heard for why the CIA etc would lie for a president to tar his successor in the last couple of months of the former's presidency.

I don't know where Schadenfreude comes in, but the role reversal is remarkable. I mean, he who is not, and has never been a conservative, and proves it by supporting Trump is casting aspersions on the competence and integrity of the CIA, while the self-proclaimed armchair anarchist is dubious about the CIA acting illegally just because the President asks them to. Had Patrick Cook come up with a scenario like that 35 years ago when he was the chief satirist and cartoonist at the National Times, I would have said he's getting a bit too desperate for ideas. Now that I'm not so callow, I laugh about it. Stops me from crying.

The worst thing is that both of you are so certain about how rational you are. FFS, now I'm laughing again.

Fuck off. I'm asking for reasoning to back up a conspiracy theory. Take yer medication.

[pErvinalia]

What the fuck are YOU talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that the CIA should act illegally just because the President asks them to?!? The CIA isn't a political organisation.

The CIA doesn't act illegally? Come on pErvin. What are you even saying?

How about you learn to read? I certainly didn't say that.

YOU are saying that the CIA is political (it isn't), and that because of that it will break the law. Nice theory, bro.

Further, their action is not necessarily illegal, or clearly illegal. They are good at making sure they have plausible deniability and cover. That's their job. Their spies, in the business of lies.

Again, what reasoning would the CIA have for doing this?

Just because it's good for the Dems to pin the hack on the Russians doesn't mean that the CIA would do it. It would be illegal for them to lie to congress.

Yet, they have lied to Congress. I didn't say that it would be good for the Dems to pin the hack on the Russians, therefore the CIA did it. It is a possibility, that's all. We have no evidence that it was the Russians. The report doesn't prove anything. That's the key. The motive to fudge it on the Russians is just that, a motive. Plenty of people with motives don't do the deed. Motive is a reason to suspect, not convict.

Again, what reason would they have for doing this? If you don't think the dems want to pin it on the Russians, then what was your point of trying argue that the CIA is political? What political purpose is being served by Obama asking the CIA boss to find Russia responsible for the hack?