- Moderator
- #81
It APPEARS that partisans in the Intel Community are actually running a covert operation to destabilize and delegitimize the election. That's the only way that all these "leaks" and daily disinformation is stoking the news cycle.
What you see publicly is that this is a DOMESTIC INSURGENCY and not necessarily a foreign one because of the # of agencies COOPERATING in these leaks and disinformation. And the fear I personally have is that the public is YET to see is the YEARS and MOUNTAINS of comprising, embarrassing, and bomb-making material that the 2 corrupt parties have bottled up in the Intel agencies. They've used this blackmail against EACH OTHER to hobble the operation, honesty and efficiency of our govt. And in EFFECT -- most of the current leadership and past party leadership would be collateral damage if this mountain of shit ever got released.
Leadership in America is now compromised in a way that any normal official in a position of power would LOSE their clearances instantaneously. Not just Gen Flynn..
And if by CHANCE -- Russia decided to STOKE an all-out destabilization, my opinion is, their PREFERRED outcome would be to contribute to the rise of a true "socialist friendly" party. One that continues to lurch farther left and is friendly to the idea of re-creating the OLD Soviet Union that Putin desires.
But that's just me talking.. We might yet find out why Saddam was REALLY hated by both BillyJeff Clinton and the Bushes. Or who was behind those anthrax attacks or even ---- who killed JFK..
I'm not sure I see it in that way...quite.
For one thing, I am absolutely convinced Russia was behind the hacks and their purpose was to attempt to influence the election. I don't think you you can get all our diverse intelligence communities on the same page if it wasn't - too much turf fighting and more competition than cooperation.
I think there is another way of looking at what is happening, and that is by the precedents that have been set and the questions they lead to.
Pre-Election
1. Why did Comey do what he did, at those exact times?
2. Why was most of the disinformation and the hacks and leaks pre-election directed towards Clinton?
3. Why did non-political, and traditionally non-partisan agencies/individuals such as military and intelligence come out in favor of Clinton or against Trump?
4. Trump repeatedly insults, dismisses, negates reports from the Intelligence communities.
5. Trump talks about a briefing in a manner which suggests he might lie to politicize it and he might not respect sensitive material in an impulse.
6. Leading figures in Trump's campaign with strong Russian ties.
Post-Election
1. Trump continues to degrade and insult the intelligence community when presented with evidence of Russia's involvement.
2. Trump surrounds himself with a close inner-circle of non-traditional outsider advisors: conspiracy theorists such as Flynn and Bannon, for example.
3. Trump's campaign staff, current advisors and cabinet include a number of people with strong Russian links.
4. Trump's Administration is in crisis mode - he has picked people who are competitive with each other, information is not shared along traditional chanels, if at all, there is internal fighting and a profound lack of trust inside.
5. Anomolies are showing up. Flynn talking with Russia - telling them not to worry about the sanctions - before Trump was even sworn into office.
6. Putin's highly unusual decision to not retaliate tit for tat in typical fashion over the expulsion of Russian spies and diplomats. It was this which flagged the Intelligence services to look over tapes of the wiretapping of Russian diplomats.
7. Flynn had lied to the VP, and the VP had defended him, and the VP was kept IN THE DARK for two weeks about this - a highly unusual lack of communication (and respect for) the man who is supposed to be closest to the President, and the #2 person in charge.
Resulting chaos
1. Leaks leaks leaks
2. Flynn resigns.
How to interpret it?
1. There is a deep distrust and unease of the President and his staff coming from the Intelligence community both civilian and military...and other agencies and a President who doesn't take it seriously. I don't ever recall such a situation before.
2. What if there are people in the Intelligence Agencies who are deeply and sincerely afraid that Trump and/or members of his staff are compromised?
It was a disturbing precedent to see key figures in Intelligence and the Military come out against Trump during the election campaign. They have traditionally been non-partisan. It's disturbing to see the amount of leaking, as well as the involvement of wikileaks (essentially a Russian proxy) and to see now, what could possibly be independent internal actions, like the leaking of this material. It's disturbing to see so many ties to Russia - a autocratic oligarchic regime, who has destabilzied a neighboring country, supported an uprising and is now suffering under sanctions that we have to power to ease.
Is it partisanship or fear for our country that is driving this?
Motive for Russia is easy - the sanctions are hurting.
If comey was ethical he would have recommended an indictment of hillary. He had to contort the law to come up with a reason to not do so. If the russki's were helping anyone it was her. As far as the intel leadership being partisan, there is NO doubt that they did. They were all obama appointments, and they all had a vested interest in hillary being elected. ALL of them.
I don't agree - and here's why.
When the FBI is investigating, they do not release info other then the bare minimum. When it's concluded - then either criminal indictment is handed down or the person is cleared. They never NEVER publically lambaste, go into detail or discuss any part of the investigation before it is concluded. Compare the way Comey handled and publicized Clinton's investigation to how they handled their investigation into Trump's Russian connections and you will see the absolute stark difference.
I also don't buy that because they were "Obama appointments" they would have a vested interest in Clinton's election. Appointments know it's for a term and many, in fact, don't last the whole term or resign in the second term. If this were the case we would have seen a whole lot of this behavior in prior transitions. The other thing is - Comey is a Republican. He is currently serving under Trump. He previously served under G.W. Bush. There is no guarantee he would have served under Clinton. What he did - that last minute email fiasco SHORTLY before the election itself - was in no way favorable to Clinton.
Boy oh boy you certainly are trying real hard to support your new King....but you are failing at it BIG TIME!
