The Russian Farce

the PROBLEM is ginning up raw reports along with expanding the reach of the reports across all the intelligence agencies is that raw (unprocessed by examination) became formalized reports.

Once it's a report it's an Intelligence "packet" and they are used for IC analysis. so you got this raw ( not in context) data masquerading as IC intelligence..and that's not even talking about the leakage.

Then there are the IC leadership reports ( like the classified and unclassified ones in January)-
are they based on "raw data " reports?

The IC leadership is politicized/compromised
 
Nomad said:
Oooooohhh, look at bitchy little Millie everyone!!!!

She's getting her back all bowed up and trying to act like a man!!!! :awesome:

That's cute, Millie.

And why are you now suddenly claiming to be using an iPhone?

Is it because my picking on you over your cheap piece of crap Lenovo junk make you so sad that you had to start lying about what kind of phone you have????
ROFLMAO.gif


Poor little Millie.... :crybaby:
Click to expand...




just shut the fuck up dude



acting like a man?


what the fuck is that supposed to mean


wipe your own ass
 
“Trump has sought and received funding from Russian investors for his business ventures, especially after most American banks stopped lending to him following his multiple bankruptcies.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-boot-trump-russian-connection-20160725-snap-story.html

Trump’s top advisors all have extensive financial and business ties to Russian financiers
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Subpoena Trump's tax returns for Russia, China, foreign deal info
March 28, 2017

The Senate and House Intelligence Committees should subpoena President Trump's tax returns for the last 10 years to help determine whether Trump has any undisclosed business or loan deals with foreign business or government interests.

There have been allegations that Trump has received substantial loans from foreign sources and/or foreign sources have poured substantial money into the U.S. to finance Trump businesses here.

If there are no undisclosed business relationships with foreign sources, the congressional subpoenas I propose here would be answered with a blank page and a confirmation from the IRS that no undisclosed foreign loan or business relationships are found in the returns.

If there are undisclosed relationships, however, they should be fully disclosed to the intelligence committees investigating Russian attacks on American democracy, and they should be fully disclosed to the American people who have a right to know whether our leaders could be under the influence of money or business from foreign sources.

If Trump resists providing this information, the intelligence committees and the American people should wonder why and subpoenas should be issued.

Why would Trump oppose providing information that would prove he is not under the financial influence of foreign sources of money?
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...a-trumps-tax-returns-for-russia-china-foreign

More Than Half of All Americans Want an Independent Probe Into Trump's Ties to Russia
April 1, 2017
http://time.com/4721976/trump-russia-ties-probe/

Senate may force Trump to turn over tax returns
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/23/senate-may-force-trump-to-turn-over-tax-returns.html

If Trump has nothing to hide and this is all a 'farce' .. why doesn't he produce produce his tax returns willingly?

The lie that he can't produce his returns while under audit has long ago been proven to be bullshit.
 
Russia narrative has now descended into incoherence.
Click to expand...

Lets all talk about our talking about it, lets not talk about the hacking, the collusion, the possible mob connections & dealing etc etc etc..

Yea, that's more important:awkward:
 
evince said:
just shut the fuck up dude

acting like a man?

what the fuck is that supposed to mean

wipe your own ass
Click to expand...

Oh OK, I get it now.

You must live in one of those states that won't let you use the women's bathroom so you're still very sensitive about issues regarding normal male behavior.

Gotcha.

Still don't care though.
 
Bill said:


Lets all talk about our talking about it, lets not talk about the hacking, the collusion, the possible mob connections & dealing etc etc etc..

Yea, that's more important:awkward:
Click to expand...
^ That all falls under "Russian collusion" -and for sure we've been talking about it since before Trump's inaugural.
++

What is finally being talked about is the leakage and (IMHO) just-if not more important- how the info was ginned up from raw data into reports (Obamatrons "briefing questions" etc.)

The reports are the 'packets' used to actually do IC analysis.

The old saying is "garbage in-garbage out." I'm sure you follow.

If the reports are substandard/bogus -so is the analysis. So would the finalized conclusions of the IC who writes
the conclusions.
It calls into question the entire FBI investigation itself -as the FBI investigatory process
is connecting "IC dots" (my words) initially generated by the NSA into this salad of IC reports
 
anatta said:
give the man a cigar. There was more to the link -some backround on the Obama Russian reset -but you are correct.

The unholy trinity of Clapper/Brennan (and Comey as the sideshow)coupled with a willing press -
who went from Russia/Trump as a laughing case during the campaign, to Russiaphobia afterwards in explaining the horrid Clinton campaign.

Key to all this was the Obamatrons after the election: disseminating low level info widely across the IC agencies

i,e. raw data was ginned up by the briefing questions (etc)to produce reports ( packets) which are then relied upon for IC analysis..The IC analysis is then based in reports "packets" that are raw data (un-examined for accuracy)
Click to expand...

Had Hillary won like she was supposed to, there would absolutely be no Russia-phobia, no investigations and no 24/7 hyperventilating on it by the media.

And that is a fact.
 
Thing1 said:
There are going to be a TON of fun threads to bump if something comes out of the investigations.
Click to expand...

Something has already come out, and that is the sucking of oxygen out of the news cycle, low approval ratings and keeping an evil man off balance so that he can't implement a single thing in his twisted evil agenda. If nothing else at all happens, it is worth every penny.
 
Thing1 said:
There are going to be a TON of fun threads to bump if something comes out of the investigations.
Click to expand...
the investigation itself is questionable -the point here -because if the raw data ( unfiltered NSA surveillance) is ginned up into reports ( finalized IC "packets" used for analysis) any analysis is based on non-contextualized raw data.
Which also calls any conclusions to be at risk.
 
anatta said:
the investigation itself is questionable -the point here -because if the raw data ( unfiltered NSA surveillance) is ginned up into reports ( finalized IC "packets" used for analysis) any analysis is based on non-contextualized raw data.
Which also calls any conclusions to be at risk.
Click to expand...

Meaningless jargon serving no purpose and making no point.
 
Micawber said:
Something has already come out, and that is the sucking of oxygen out of the news cycle, low approval ratings and keeping an evil man off balance so that he can't implement a single thing in his twisted evil agenda. If nothing else at all happens, it is worth every penny.
Click to expand...
and there you go.
Abuse of power at the hands of the IC ( acting as Deep State) in conjunction with leakage to the media-
fanned by partisan Democrats..all based on raw data as reports.
 
anatta said:
The entire Trump-collusion-with-Russia narrative has now descended into incoherence.

For five months, dating back to the heated final stretch of the 2016 election, mainstream media — in particular Obama-administration pet reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC — ran creepy and occasionally near-obscene stories about “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

These published rumors were based on “unnamed sources” often identified generically as American intelligence officers inside the FBI, CIA, and NSA.
Soon that narrative went from ominous to hysterical — but only once Hillary inexplicably lost the election.
The anonymous allegations of collusion were used to convict the Trump circle of a veritable pre-election partnership with the Russians.
The collusion was to be followed, the story went, with a new reset with Putin — this time born not out of naïveté but of lucre and near treason.

We forget that the Democrats’ narratives of the purported Trump collusion also radically changed to meet changing circumstances.
Before the election, a sure and poor-loser Trump was pathetically cheating with the Russians to stop the fated winner Clinton.
Then, in the post-election shock and transition, the Russian-interference storyline was repackaged as an excuse for the poorly conducted Clinton campaign that had blown a supposedly big lead and sure victory.
“The Russians did it” was preferable to blaming Hillary for not visiting Wisconsin once.

Finally, Trump’s Russian connection served as a useful tool to delegitimize an abhorrent incoming Trump administration.

And the delegitimizing was made easier by Obama’s eleventh-hour order, days before his departure, to expand the list of federal officials who would have access to sensitive intelligence and surveillance transcripts.

But all such accusations of Trump-Russian complicity, based on admitted leaks from intelligence agencies, required some sort of hard evidence:
leaked transcripts of Trump officials clearly outlining shared strategies with the Russians, hard proof of Russian electronic tampering in key swing states, doctored e-mails planted in the Podesta WikiLeaks trove, travel records of Trump people in clandestine meetings with Russian counterparts, or bank records showing cash payoffs.

Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had as many financial dealings with pro-Russian interests as did Trump people.
Yet a hostile media, in collusion with intelligence-agency leakers, has so far provided no such proof. John Podesta had as much invested in Russian profiteering as did former Trump aides.
Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had as many financial dealings with pro-Russian interests as did Trump people.
The ubiquitous Russian ambassador had met as many Democratic grandees as he had Trump associates

The lack so far of hard proof gradually created a boomerang effect.
Attention turned away from what “unnamed sources” had alleged to the question of how unnamed sources had gathered surveillance of the Trump people in the first place —
as evidenced by media reports of General Flynn’s conversations, of Trump’s private talks with foreign leaders, and of allegations of electronic contact between Russian and Trump Tower computers.

In other words, the media and their sources had gambled that congressional overseers, law enforcement, and the public would all overlook surveillance that may have been illegal or only partly legal, and they would also overlook the clearly illegal leaking of such classified information on a candidate and a president-elect —
if it all resulted in a scandal of the magnitude of the Pentagon Papers or Watergate.

So far such a scandal has not emerged.
But Trump’s opponents continue to push the Russian narrative not because it is believable but because it exhausts and obfuscates likely illegal surveillance and leaking.
The real scandal is probably not going to be Trump’s contacts with Russians.
More likely, it will be the rogue work of a politically driven group of intelligence officers, embedded within the bureaucracy.

Either in freelancing mode, or in Henry II–Thomas Becket fashion (“Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”) with Obama-administration officials, began monitoring Team Trump — either directly or more likely through the excuse of inadvertently chancing upon conversations while monitoring supposedly suspicious foreign communications.

Added to this mess is the role of three unsympathetic characters who are on record as either not telling the truth, deliberately obfuscating it, or showing terrible judgement.
Obama CIA director John Brennan, who assumed that role after the still mysterious and abrupt post-election departure of David Petraeus, has a long history of political gymnastics; he has made many a necessary career readjustment to changing Washington politics.

He is on record as being deceptive — he failed to reveal that the CIA intercepted Senate communications.
He also stated falsely that the drone program had not resulted in a single collateral death.
And, in the spirit of Obama’s new Islamic outreach, Brennan strangely suggested that jihad was a sort of personal odyssey rather than a call to use force in spreading Islamic influence.
Brennan is also on record as critical of Trump: Trump “should be ashamed of himself,” Brennan said the day after the inauguration, in response to Trump’s speech to CIA staffers gathered in front of the Memorial Wall of Agency heroes.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has in the past lied to Congress, when he assured that the NSA did not monitor the communications of American citizens.
Likewise, he bizarrely asserted that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely a secular organization.
And more than 50 CENTCOM officers formally accused Clapper of distorting their reports about the Islamic State.
Like Brennan, Clapper has been critical of Trump, asking, “Who benefits from a president-elect trashing the intelligence community?”

During the 2016 election, FBI Director James Comey popped up to assure the nation that while Hillary Clinton had conducted herself unethically, and probably in violation of federal statutes in using her private e-mail server for government business and wiping away correspondence, her transgressions did not rise to the level of indictable offenses.
It was as if the investigator Comey, rather than the appropriate federal attorney, was adjudicating the decision to charge a suspect.
Then in the final stretch of the race, Comey resurfaced to assert that “new” evidence had led him to reconsider his exculpation of Clinton.
And then, on November 6, 2016, just hours before the nation went to the polls, he appeared a third time in front of cameras to reiterate his original judgment that Hillary’s transgressions did not merit further investigation, much less criminal prosecutions.

The media contextualized Comey’s schizophrenia as see-saw reactions either to liberal Obama-administration pressures or to near revolts among the more conservative FBI rank-and-file.
Just as likely was Comey’s own neurotic itch to seek public attention and to position himself favorably with a likely new president.

How did Obama’s naïve pro-Putin reset and Clinton-family profiteering transmogrify into wild accusations that others had become even friendlier to such an unsavory character?
Comey’s weird election-era prominence was also apparently fueled by the fact that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was caught in an embarrassing private meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton — a meeting during the investigation of his spouse.
(The encounter was intended to remain secret, but a local reporter was tipped off.)
That unethical encounter had tainted Lynch’s pose of disinterested adjudication, and she accordingly de facto fobbed off her prosecutorial responsibilities to Comey.
Comey most lately has asked the Justice Department to refute Trump’s claims that he was subject to electronic surveillance by the government during the last days of the Obama administration.

Given the past assertions and political natures of Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, none are very credible in any future testimony they might give about the Trump-Russia narrative or the role U.S. intelligence agencies played in the possibly illegal monitoring of Trump associates.
All three men are even less credible when it comes to the illegal leaking of such classified information to media outlets.

Trump’s infamous and clumsy tweet (“just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower”) may well prove to be inaccurate — literally.
But it could also end up being prescient if revelations show that Obama-appointed officials or their underlings used surveillance on foreign officials — three years after the NSA got caught tapping Angela Merkel’s cellphone — in order to sweep up Trump communications and then leak them to the media to damage his candidacy and later his transition.

We are left in the end with paradoxes: How did Obama’s naïve pro-Putin reset and Clinton-family profiteering transmogrify into wild accusations that others had become even friendlier to such an unsavory character?
How did the image of a sacrosanct media speaking the “truth” of Trump’s collusion with Putin rest on the peddling of false narratives — many of them based on likely illegal surveillance and certainly unethical and unlawful dissemination?
And if Trump was unhinged for leveling wild allegations based on mainstream news reports, why were news outlets themselves — and those who quoted them chapter and verse — not unhinged for spreading such suddenly unreliable information?
What is the explanatory sword that cuts this Gordian knot?
Trump supposedly had zero chance of winning. But when he did, facts had to adjust to a bitter actuality — at first perhaps to explain away reality, but quite soon after to alter it by any means necessary.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...steria-diverts-attention-surveillance-scandal
Click to expand...

Putin hates Obama and HRC, why? Because they did not let him have his way. So you can attack Obama's Russian policy all you want, it was effective enough to seriously piss off Putin.
 
anatta said:
and there you go.
Abuse of power at the hands of the IC ( acting as Deep State) in conjunction with leakage to the media-
fanned by partisan Democrats..all based on raw data as reports.
Click to expand...

You've said nothing except that no matter what happens, you ain't buying it. But we all already knew that about you. So, as I stated, you said nothing of value to anyone, even to yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top