America's spies anonymously took down Michael Flynn. That is deeply worrying.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Left-wing media, right-wing media, the point is that all media is politically or economically aligned.

The point is that the media is colluding with the deep state to bring down the president.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Left-wing media, right-wing media, the point is that all media is politically or economically aligned.

The point is that the media is colluding with the deep state to bring down the president.

Source?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking to him.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: mobiusmale

I'm not sure how it's worrying. If Michael Flynn didn't do anything wrong, there never would have been anything for them to take him down with.

If anything, they just did their job and ensured someone who is compromised isn't in a position of power.

If this was true they would have started arresting people in bilderberg and the CFR 20 years ago.

I'm sure everyone on ATS remembers in 2008 when our democratic candidates ditched the media and went to the bilderberg meeting. That's ok?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: mobiusmale

I'm not sure how it's worrying. If Michael Flynn didn't do anything wrong, there never would have been anything for them to take him down with.

If anything, they just did their job and ensured someone who is compromised isn't in a position of power.

This sounds like an argument in favour of allowing the Government to stop and search any person (or vehicle) without probable cause...or to enter into a person's residence, or place of business, and then to search it (and the things found there, like computers) without a warrant.

The argument being, "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide...so why should you care if the Government invades your privacy?"

Do you believe that it is the Government's job to listen to, and record, what everyone in the country is saying, and read what everyone is writing - and then to release snippets of those private communications, when it feels like it, to take down citizens it does not like or agree with?

I would say there is plenty about this that is worrying...

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking to him.

Ah.

Your source is your own opinion. Are you saying your opinion is unsubstantiated by facts that you can reference?

a reply to: jellyrev

Or just maybe there's nothing nefarious in Bilderberg or CFR meetings? I realize that those are the conspiracy theory bread and butter when it comes to anything government... but what if the real conspiracy is that Alex Jones, the guy who presented those meetings, is lying to you about what they contain? Remember that time Alex Jones got invited to the Bilderberg meeting as a way to shut him up, then conveniently got himself kicked out for obnoxious behavior before he was able to film anything damning? I do.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah.

Your source is your own opinion. Are you saying your opinion is unsubstantiated by facts that you can reference?

Is it true or false that unnamed, unelected and faceless bureaucrats are leaking classified information to the press?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah.

Your source is your own opinion. Are you saying your opinion is unsubstantiated by facts that you can reference?

Is it true or false that unnamed, unelected and faceless bureaucrats are leaking classified information to the press?

There have always been leaks of information, sometimes classified, to the press.

How is that evidence of a collusion between "the deep state" (what is that by the way, outside of a generic theortical term?) and "the media" (all media? including that which is routinely favorable to the President as I noted above?)?

Your statement is evolving to be off-topic in my opinion.

Suffice it to say that "mainstream media" includes bias off all sorts, economic and political.

a reply to: mobiusmale

No. But Flynn was more than just a random citizen at the time this happened. He was a presumptive nominee for a government position, privy to sensitive information, had the Presidents ear, and was able to represent the United States to Russia as more than just a private citizen.

I expect the government to be self regulating, checks and balances. While the three branches are part of that, those branches themselves also have internal parts that moderate themselves. Spies confirming that Flynn is untrustworthy is part of that. The job of the security institutions is to protect the government regardless of who or what they have to look at.

This was a long time coming for Flynn anyways. Trump liked the guy, but behind closed doors a lot of higher up's across the government, military, etc... didn't, because nothing he said was grounded in reality. For a brief time he was our countries version of Rasputin or Choi Soon-sil.

I actually think it's a testament to the stability of our system that such a thing only lasted for a few months rather than the years/decades it typically lasts in other nations.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Washington Post, January 23, 2017

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

So "they" say.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Washington Post, January 23, 2017

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

So "they" say.

Beg pardon?

Who is "they"?

a reply to: Aazadan

I didn't claim what they do is nefarious.
At Bilderberg, Do foreign officials and citizens not meet at these meetings? Do they not discuss nation and supra-nation policy?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Washington Post, January 23, 2017

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

So "they" say.

Beg pardon?

Who is "they"?

I don't know. BTW, welcome back! Been awhile.

originally posted by: carewemust
Announed that Adm Harward is replacing Flynn. What does the intelligence Community think of him?

Depending on what rumors are leaked to whom and when, we'll find out.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Washington Post, January 23, 2017

The calls were picked up as part of routine electronic surveillance of Russian officials and agents in the United States, which is one of the FBI’s responsibilities, according to the U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss counterintelligence operations.

So "they" say.

Beg pardon?

Who is "they"?

I don't know. BTW, welcome back! Been awhile.

Fair enough.

BTW, thanks.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Aazadan

I didn't claim what they do is nefarious.
At Bilderberg, Do foreign officials and citizens not meet at these meetings? Do they not discuss nation and supra-nation policy?

They do, but in the case of non government officials they speak in terms of what they'll lobby for, or what they'll do if/when they come to power. Not in terms of subverting the government. They also speak of doing things where they can, such as setting corporate agendas in the nations of those leaders.

The elites if you want to use that term certainly meet and come to agreements with each other, but that can be done without subverting a private citizens nation.

The whole point of Bilderberg and other meetings like it right now, is to do what the UN was supposed to do but can't.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust
Announed that Adm Harward is replacing Flynn. What does the intelligence Community think of him?

Depending on what rumors are leaked to whom and when, we'll find out.

Is it a rumor that Michael Flynn communicated with the Russian Ambassador and then lied to the Trump Administration about it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: carewemust
Announed that Adm Harward is replacing Flynn. What does the intelligence Community think of him?

Depending on what rumors are leaked to whom and when, we'll find out.

Is it a rumor that Michael Flynn communicated with the Russian Ambassador and then lied to the Trump Administration about it?

It depends in which alt-fact, alt-reality one lives.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah.

Your source is your own opinion. Are you saying your opinion is unsubstantiated by facts that you can reference?

Is it true or false that unnamed, unelected and faceless bureaucrats are leaking classified information to the press?

So, that the information is leaked is more important than the information contained in those leaks?