Will you accept the election results?

[Hermit]

Two presidents, wow. Much regular.

"Regular" is a word you introduced. I see no point in defending what others have not said.

None of your equivocating and strawmanning changes the fact that 42 is proffering a conspiracy theory and providing zero reasoning to back it up. As much as you and he want it to be true, the CIA isn't political. It's an apolitical bureaucracy. Driving trucks hasn't left you in much position to post authoritatively about how the public service operates and how much the head of large bureaucratic organisations gets involved in day to day operations (hint, it's essentially zero). If you think otherwise, present evidence, or fuck off with your inane conspiracy theories.

Oh look. A self-proclaimed authority. You should write a book containing your authoritative knowledge. Perhaps you'll attract a greater readership with that than your blog. Just make sure to mention that having worked as a public servant you are an authority on the CIA.

[pErvinalia]

Previously, the attitude expressed by leftists has been that the CIA is political and that it does lie when it suits its bosses.

Where I have I done that? If I am to represent "leftists" in your inane false equivalency then you need to show where I've done that.

So you always regarded the CIA as a non-political agency that does not lie when it suits its bosses. Facts do contradict that opinion, but I accept that you always have held it.

Shows the facts or STFU. Or even better, STFU and take your medication.

Benefits have nothing to do with any of that, unless of course one keeps in mind that being sprung for lying is not beneficial to the reputation and perceived integrity of the organisation.

Of course benefit has something to do with it. Unless you think the usual concept of self-interest doesn't apply to organisations. Retarded thinkers make that sort of error. What has nothing to do with it is politicisation. The CIA isn't a political organisation, full stop.

Self interest also demands to do your bosses' bidding. I am sure that the CIA would happily operate without bosses, but whether it likes it or not, it has them: The president, his secretaries and whoever else he delegates to deal with the organisation. In doing the political bosses' bidding, they become a political organisation, comma.

Brian, Jim and I have all addressed this. You and 42 are wrong. If you think your conspiracy theory is right then present evidence.

[pErvinalia]

Two presidents, wow. Much regular.

"Regular" is a word you introduced. I see no point in defending what others have not said.

None of your equivocating and strawmanning changes the fact that 42 is proffering a conspiracy theory and providing zero reasoning to back it up. As much as you and he want it to be true, the CIA isn't political. It's an apolitical bureaucracy. Driving trucks hasn't left you in much position to post authoritatively about how the public service operates and how much the head of large bureaucratic organisations gets involved in day to day operations (hint, it's essentially zero). If you think otherwise, present evidence, or fuck off with your inane conspiracy theories.

Oh look. A self-proclaimed authority. You should write a book containing your authoritative knowledge. Perhaps you'll attract a greater readership with that than your blog. Just make sure to mention that having worked as a public servant you are an authority on the CIA.

Nice deflection. Evasion noted.

[pErvinalia]

And further, you chose to dispute the claim. Even if it is a strawman (it's not, by necessity, as explained), you refuted it with nothing more than incredulity manufactured to suit your purposes in presenting an inane false equivalency because it was lunchtime and you hadn't engaged your 'anal nitpicker' engine so far for the day. So again, where's your evidence that it happens? Anus extractions don't count.

[Forty Two]

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.

I am, of course, expecting the security services to support their claims. That much is true. Is there something wrong with that expectation?

As to the "to your satisfaction," it is true in every circumstance that for someone to support a claim sufficiently to get another person to say "o.k., I accept that claim to be true," the support must be to that other person's satisfaction. How else could it be? Shall we leave it to the person asserting a claim to determine whether they have supported it?

No, I am not requiring them to "tell us your secrets." Although, they tell secrets all the time, and sometimes secrets are declassified, and can be disclosed. That's one option. If they have the info, they can provide it. That was not the only alternative I gave, however. I also said that they could state that they have the information and that the information would be problematic to release because of safety or ongoing security concerns, etc. Someone could simply go on record as verifying that they, an agent of the CIA or NSA or DHS, whatever, have seen the evidence and it shows that Russia did it. That way, later, if it turns out it was big load of shit, a person can be held accountable.

The thing is, they have not said that. And, nobody has gone on record. And, the support they have offered is equivocal, and really rather weak, and admittedly does not link up to the Russian government. It just could link up, they say, and it is consistent, they say, with their capabilities, motives and methods. And, the sources are unnamed, and nobody in the agencies has gone on record as saying there is solid support that we're not giving you because of security reasons.

If it boils down to trust, then I don't trust them. I hear them. I accept they might be right. But, I do not take anyone's claims at face value or because I trust them. I don't care who they are.

As for the last bit about would I be questioning it if they came back and said they were unable to find any evidence of Russian hacking? I would still neither believe nor disbelieve them, except to the extent that the report they issued shows how they concluded that. If it was a Republican President at the time, who had appointed the heads of the CIA, NSA, and DHS, and it was a Republican candidate benefiting from that report, if the report was vague and allowed plausible deniability later, I would definitely view it with suspicion, because of the fact that the side benefiting from the report got the favorable report. If, however, it is a Democratic Administration, who appointed the heads of all the agencies, and the report came out to the detriment of the Democrats, then the motive factor is gone. The party in power stood to benefit, but the report came out against them. Those are not end-all-be-all factors. They're just recognitions of bias and motive.

We ran into this problem in 2002 and 03 when the CIA was stamping its approval on the notion that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program and was out buying nuclear materials for its nuclear weapons program. That was very helpful to the Bush Administration. It turned out to be false. And at the time people were rightly saying, "hey wait a minute... you SAY this and that, but this report doesn't really DEMONSTRATE that there is proof of these things..." and the intelligence agencies retorted with their usual "sources and methods" and "trust us, we just can't tell you or we'd have to kill you..." kind of thing.

It is not controvesial to to not trust these entities. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... ks-w458439

[Forty Two]

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

If we're all in agreement that the CIA isn't to be taken on faith, then what's the issue?

I have never heard anyone call the CIA the "defenders of liberty." I am sure there are some super-conservatives who are like "CIA right or wrong!" But, that's not me and never has been me. It also has ZERO to do with the issue.

The question is, have we been shown reasonable evidence -- proof - that the Russians did the hacking? I sure haven't seen it. Have you?

If someone wants to trust the CIA on this because they are supposedly an apolitical organization who wouldn't lie and wouldn't rely on flimsy evidence to reach important conclusions, well, that's up to them. But, I'll damn well not be called a "conspiracy theorist" because I don't take what the Central Intelligence Agency has to say on faith.

[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.

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.

In many ways, Trump is less conservative than Hillary Clinton, and he absolutely, without doubt, was the least conservative of any Republican candidate.

Casting aspersions on the CIA? The CIA has overthrown popularly elected governments, manufactured incidents that sparked wars, tried to invade a sovereign nation on the sly, and created completely incorrect reports about WMDs which facilitated a major war in Iraq, and they've lied to Congress outright and been caught at it (they lied about their secret prisons), etc.

Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper lied to Congress when he said flat out that they did not collect information about millions of Americans, and the Ed Snowden affair proved he was not telling the truth to Congress when he said that. He first said that he "forgot" about the program and "we all make mistakes," and then he said that his statement was "the least untruthful" statement he could have made at the time about the highly secretive program. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/24 ... sa-program

CIA Director Richard Helms was CONVICTED of lying to Congress about the CIA's role in overthrowing Allende's government in Chili. CIA Director Bill Casey lied to Congress about trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair, and the CIA ignored federal law by continuing to try to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua after Congress passed a law saying it was illegal for them to do so. CIA director George Tenet told Congress that Al Qaeta had provided training in combat, bomb-making and weapons of mass destruction, although that information came from one source who was tortured to get it and later recanted. CIA Director John Brennan lied to Congress just last year about the CIA's hacking or "obtaining" of US Senate staff emails concerning the a Senate Committee's investigation into the CIA's use of torture - in other words, he lied about spying on a government committee whose role was to oversee his agency. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/video- ... hes-lying/

So, yeah, intelligence agencies lie. The sometimes lie right to our faces, and Congress' faces, under oath. And, they do so thinking they are doing the right thing, apparently.

What that leaves me with is a good, historical basis for one very simple, and what I would think to be a very uncontroversial view on it. I'd like some evidence, please. And, if they have to withhold some evidence because of security concerns, then I want someone to go on records and put their name on the line that (a) the evidence exists and what it proves/shows, and (b) that they are not disclosing it because of security concerns.

[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?

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.

Oi. Stop mincing words. The CIA can, and does, respond to political pressure, and it has agendas of its own. As I said, whateveryou call it, to suggest it's free from political influence is as naive as naive can be.

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?

Hard to say. A lot goes on behind closed doors. What reasoning did they have for lying about WMD in Iraq, etc.?

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?

To keep the Democratic Party in Power due to the overwhelming opposition to Donald Trump. The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who has lied to Congress before, reports directly to the President, and John Brennan the director of the CIA (who also has lied to Congress before) reports to James Clapper.

At bottom, this whole, "what reasoning would they have" is beside the point. I do not view this as "I believe them unless I can see why they would have a clear motive to lie." I view it as "I find their report interesting, and I am glad to take it at face value; however, I won't conclude that russia did it unless there is evidence that Russia did it." Where the report itself does not show that Russia did it, I can't see why I would accept someone pointing to that report and saying "see, Russia did it."

I have no idea why the CIA lied all the times they did, and I would bet dollars to donuts that the reasons behind their lies are likely as secret as much of the information they maintain. That's no reason to believe what they tell me on faith. You can do what you want.

[Jason]

Major report on Russian hacking to go public

WASHINGTON — The U.S. intelligence community will release a public report next week detailing Russia's attempt to use cyberattacks to influence the U.S. presidential election, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate panel Thursday.
Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that a comprehensive report ordered by President Obama on Russian hacking will be ready next week, including an unclassified version that the public will be able to review. He said lawmakers will receive closed-door briefings on the classified portions of the report.
"Until then, I'm not really prepared to discuss this beyond our earlier statements," Clapper testified. The intelligence community has said that Russia hacked political party committees during the election in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. The CIA and FBI have agreed that the interference was aimed at helping President-elect Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"There is actually more than one motive," Clapper testified. "That will be detailed in the report."
Clapper said the Russian interference "did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort." He said there is no way for the intelligence community to gauge the impact of the hacking and the subsequent leak of information from Clinton's campaign on how Americans voted.
Clapper said he intends to "push the envelope" to include as much information as possible in the public version of the report.
"I think the public should know as much as possible about this," he said.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/ ... spartandhp

It sounds like this report will put everything on the line and there ought to be the evidence we seek in it.

[pErvinalia]

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.

I am, of course, expecting the security services to support their claims. That much is true. Is there something wrong with that expectation?

As to the "to your satisfaction," it is true in every circumstance that for someone to support a claim sufficiently to get another person to say "o.k., I accept that claim to be true," the support must be to that other person's satisfaction. How else could it be? Shall we leave it to the person asserting a claim to determine whether they have supported it?

No, I am not requiring them to "tell us your secrets." Although, they tell secrets all the time, and sometimes secrets are declassified, and can be disclosed. That's one option. If they have the info, they can provide it. That was not the only alternative I gave, however. I also said that they could state that they have the information and that the information would be problematic to release because of safety or ongoing security concerns, etc. Someone could simply go on record as verifying that they, an agent of the CIA or NSA or DHS, whatever, have seen the evidence and it shows that Russia did it. That way, later, if it turns out it was big load of shit, a person can be held accountable.

The thing is, they have not said that. And, nobody has gone on record.

The top intelligence official in the US, James Fapper... sorry, James Clapper... has now gone on record. - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/r ... 49660447=1

[pErvinalia]

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?

Hard to say. A lot goes on behind closed doors. What reasoning did they have for lying about WMD in Iraq, etc.?

An invasion of Iraq benefits the CIA MASSIVELY!

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?

To keep the Democratic Party in Power due to the overwhelming opposition to Donald Trump.

Huh? The only way that scenario could play out is by pinning the hack on Russia (or another foreign power). Where in the fuck did you learn logic?!?

[Forty Two]

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?

Hard to say. A lot goes on behind closed doors. What reasoning did they have for lying about WMD in Iraq, etc.?

An invasion of Iraq benefits the CIA MASSIVELY!

So does friction with Russia.

So, you've given us a circumstance where the CIA will fabricate intelligence. Good, we've gotten that far.

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?

I don't know what they want. I don't read minds. It sure looked like that's what they wanted to do, given how fast they screamed "the russians are coming." But, I'm not concerned with what the Democrats want. I'm just concerned with what evidence they have to make their claims.

What political purpose is being served by Obama asking the CIA boss to find Russia responsible for the hack?

Delegitimize Trump's presidency, for one thing. Congressman Lewis said so the other day. He doesn't think Trump is a legitimate President because the Russians helped get Trump elected.

Huh? The only way that scenario could play out is by pinning the hack on Russia (or another foreign power). Where in the fuck did you learn logic?!?

You asked for speculation as to why they would do this. Why does their motive have to be "the only way?"

Again, there is no conspiracy theory here. All it is is skepticism based on lack of evidence. I don't believe them on faith. I don't believe Trump on faith. I don't believe a word the guy says. I believe what he says that can be demonstrated. His promises were promises of achievement --- he says he'll do this, that and the other thing -- I don't believe him. I EXPECT him to fulfill his promises, and EXPECT him to do his job. If he doesn't, then I'll oppose him too. I don't believe Obama, or Pelosi, or Reid or Hillary Clinton -- not a word of what they say is true or accurate -- not unless it is independently verified.

They're all willing to lie. Their motives are not always clear, and a lot of what they do is backroom and not apparent to the public. So, I won't speculate as to what motive they have, and I'm not going to proceed by believing what they say absent some clearly evident motive they would have to lie. That's not the test. There is no "presumption of belief" here where they get the benefit of trust until they give us a reason not to trust them. I don't trust them, until they prove their case.

Same with the CIA, only moreso. That group is in the business of lying and deception. I don't need to know or see a reason for them to lie, or just get it wrong. They are fallible. So, I'm not taking what they say without proof.

[pErvinalia]

Your argument is a dog's breakfast. You are claiming that the CIA etc are political (they're not), and that it serves some political purpose to cast their incoming boss as illegitimate and potentially in debt to a foreign power. That's farcical reasoning.

[Forty Two]

Your argument is a dog's breakfast. You are claiming that the CIA etc are political (they're not), and that it serves some political purpose to cast their incoming boss as illegitimate and potentially in debt to a foreign power. That's farcical reasoning.

I'm saying that I don't believe what they say without evidence.

The CIA is effected by politics, though. The Executive Branch of government influences the CIA. To not understand that is naive. That, however, is unnecessary to the analysis.

The CIA is sometimes wrong.
The CIA sometimes lies.
We don't always know when they lie or why.
Politicians sometimes are wrong.
Politicians sometimes lie.

I don't accept factual claims without substantiating evidence.

Even if the CIA were wholly unaffected by POTUS politics -- even assuming a completely neutral and unbiased CIA under all and every circumstance with the most honest CIA director possible, who would never ever lie for any reason -- even in that circumstance, I would not believe what they say without evidence. Just fallibility is enough. And, when the charge is this serious, it's important that there be evidence.

If the CIA said that there was a guy on Christmas Island plotting to post nasty tweets on the Twitter, I'd not be too concerned. Suggesting that the Russians hacked our electoral system and swung the election for one candidate over another through illegal and improper means is a big deal. So, I just want some good evidence.

And, fuck off, dude. You're practice is to accept ever allegation that supports your own political view. You reject everything else. You wouldn't accept this kind of report if it was leveled at Hillary Clinton, and you know it. You only accept it based on whose ox is being gored. You know it, and everyone else knows it.

So you sit here and blast bullshit at me about how I'm espousing some conspiracy theory I've never espoused. It's just more of your dishonest shenanigans.

Get this through your skull: I do not believe them, because there is no persuasive evidence that the allegations are true (at least nothing made public). If such evidence is released, I will evaluate it and see if it's persuasive and if it is I'll change my mind. I do not "disbelieve" them either. I don't know if it's true or not. So, not knowing, means I don't believe.

If you want to give the CIA credence unless there is some clearly evidence motive to fabricate, then that's your test, not mine. But, not using your test doesn't make mine a conspiracy theory. You had asked for speculation as to why they would want to lie -- people have given you that speculation, but that's all it can be right now, because we don't know what is in their heads. Nothing has leaked to clue us in. they may not give a fuck if Trump is President. They may prefer it. They may be acting in 100% good faith and only reporting what they think is the gospel truth. But, i don't believe in gospel without evidence.

Got it?

FFS man.

[Forty Two]

Here is one former Army Intelligence Officer reporting on what he believes is the political motives of John Brennan http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/12/forme ... cal-games/ - now, I could believe him, since I don't know of any reason why he'd lie....or, I can take his statements for what they are, unsubstantiated statements, and await some evidence.... which should I do?