Intelligence Chiefs Diverge From Trump On Main Threats to US

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: shooterbrody

They are every bit as honest and truthful as the American left, and their media.

So, no they would never lie or attempt deceptions.

You are right, PUBLICLY LYING would totally destroy their credibility, they would never do that; especially with something so easily verifiable.

a reply to: ausername

But but but.... why not just have another summit where he can come out and say that Putin agrees to stop just because we are so in love.... He can claim Russia is no longer a nuclear threat.
No? Summits only work with North Korea?

a reply to: shooterbrody

they wouldnt lie about interfering with our elections would they?

a reply to: Sillyolme

You, being a seasoned expert, would be an authority on the subject!
Perhaps you could start a thread on that?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Negotiations for a new treaty would be wise. A better, more verifiable agreement that both sides can sign onto is definitely doable. One with clear consequences for any failure to comply.

Peace and better relations are possible, but I'm sure democrats will fight it all the way.

a reply to: ausername

Verifiable indeed. I remember being taught a russian phrase Doveryai, no proveryai during the negotiations with Reagan and Gorbachev. Trust but verify.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Trust but verify.

Really???
That is a laff riot.
I wonder how one would "verify"....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: M5xaz

I dont produce public service messages though.... I just suggested someone do it...Einstein.

Right.
You don't produce Orwellian messages but strongly support their creation....FAIL...again...

...Just stop digging.....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

they wouldnt lie about interfering with our elections would they?

Your zero Hillary lost because she was a lousy, corrupt, incompetent politician. Nothing to do with Russia, despite popular delusion....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

they wouldnt lie about interfering with our elections would they?

Your zero Hillary lost because she was a lousy, corrupt, incompetent politician. Nothing to do with Russia, despite popular delusion....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: whywhynot

Im the only one around here who can apparently.

That, my dear, is only an opinion that you hold.

So rather than his "intelligence chiefs" keeping things private and only discussing information with the president, some leaked their own opinions to the press because they are actually and semi-secretly opposed to the president, so opining to the press will damage Trump and discredit him.. Only to intelligence deficit folks who believe the veracity of a story the press grabs up and uses as ammunition against Trump, would believe a story like this has an ounce of merit.

This sort of thing follows a well established pattern of betrayals.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gothmog

Oh my... ya know what? Never mind.

Walks away chuckling quietly and shaking her head.

Dont have an answer , do you ?
Lets start with Russia - Russia is no threat . It is a game the US and Russia play .
North Korea - Was that a Trump lie or a Kim lie ?
Denying ignorance
Why ?
It is a hobby of mine

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it wasnt leaked to the press.
They had a televised hearing with the house of representatives to advise them and the country of our safety situation in the world.

a reply to: Gothmog

Thats not what I said....
go back and read it again.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No it wasnt leaked to the press.
They had a televised hearing with the house of representatives to advise them and the country of our safety situation in the world.

You missed the entire point however, which is that those particular "intelligence people" made comments in opposition to the policies of the President, and did so without the common courtesy or professionalism you would expect from such people.

Anyone who actually cares about those little things like ethical representation of policies within the government wouldn't just start busting loose ANYWHERE without first consulting with the President, no matter who was president at the time.

Obviously with your hatred of Donald Trump, you miss every rational concept and idea when it comes to these types of things. And you have always made that very clear with comments that completely lack any real desire to understand anything clearly regarding Trump, Hillary, or anything political. And that is being too kind.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

They spoke the truth about the risks that trump ignores while making up horror stories about things he wants you to be scared of.
Come on... I know more than the generals. I know more than the intelligence people. I know more than the scientists.
When does this b/s get to be too much huh? No he doesn't know more than these experts and the only reason he wants you to think ill of the intelligence community as a whole is because he needs you to think of them as his enemy.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

In addition regarding your thinking about when intelligence should be shared and with whom.
It has nothing to do with the president's foreign policy as you seem to think. In most cases the two will be in agreeance anyway.

III. How Intelligence-Sharing Works at Present There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard-and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to.

much more information here from the CIA
www.cia.gov...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

In addition regarding your thinking about when intelligence should be shared and with whom.
It has nothing to do with the president's foreign policy as you seem to think. In most cases the two will be in agreeance anyway.

III. How Intelligence-Sharing Works at Present There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years. While some aspects of current practice appear to have achieved the status of mutually accepted "policy," few represent hard-and-fast rules. "Policy" will give way when it has to.

much more information here from the CIA
www.cia.gov...

You are just incapable of acknowledging common concepts. If it was Hillary or Obama, and his or her intelligence people made comments about those administrations without first getting on the same page with Obama, or Hillary, then Hillary and or Obama would rip the ever loving cr@p out of them. You know, how those two did their business.
And it isn't "foreign policy" I'm talking about, it's having people you need and trust to HELP you, not F'k you up" Like Trump's terrible choices in running these important agencies prove.

Itneresting seeing lies called out here.
Funny how little reasearch it takes to expose a liar.