Fienstien and the CIA

Mixed emotions on this one. I'm certainly not a fan of her and had to laugh when the shoe is on the other foot and comes around to bite her.

On a deeper level, is this the first federal agency that might be moving against the Obama Administration? (Obviously, she a vocal supporter of Obama so I include her as a de facto member of the Obama team even though she's a senator).

From what I have observed, Obama continues to retain broad democrat support largely by allowing the various agencies within the federal gov't an almost carte blanch support for the "wish-list" items that they covet.

The list is long as it is obvious. Common core, immigration issues, EPA expansion of powers, the anti-military crowd, the gay rights advocates, gun control advocates...it's actually difficult to find an exception. It has worked beautifully. Few, if any, elected democrats/liberals have come out against Obama. Quid pro quos abound.

Rightly or wrongly, both parties to a large degree have maintained a similar foreign policy stance, human rights, terrorists, so on. Even Obama seemed in virtual lockstep on Afghanistan and Iraq with Bush. Both in time lines, surges, so on. This is reflected by the CIA and it's activities, again, rightly or wrongly.

Now, in his second term, it looks like more of a personal stamp by Obama on foreign policy. The Libyan issues, Syria and now the Ukraine seems to go against the traditional(?) policies of the U.S.. The includes the CIA and it's activities.

The military has had it's leadership well purged, apparently. DHS has been morphed into an almost personal "gestapo" for Obama in that they enforce/ignore federal laws almost at every whim of the Obama administration.

Perhaps the CIA, no matter one's personal opinion of them, is digging in it's heels? An indication that they may be acting a little out of phase with Obama?

Maybe just wishful thinking on my part....

I mean historically the CIA has always done what it wants. Example JFK

reply to post by nwtrucker


Snowden was right on the money when commenting about Fienstien. He said NSA spying is only against the constitution when politicians are subject to the spying. Constitutional rights of the average citizen goes on deaf ears! It's only when the rich, and political elite are subject to prying eyes is when they call it a crime. I guess she put her foot in her mouth along with all the other politicians who condemned Snowden as traitor.

reply to post by American-philosopher


I'd say that's an exception to the rule rather than their norm. If the CIA always did what they wanted, both parties would gang up on em and wipe their existence of the face of the earth.

The CIA has had it's share of enemies over the decades. State. Military intelligence. F.B.I..

it's more believable, at least to me, that they step out rarely without someone's stamp of approval....

The thing is that I don't see how we're ever supposed to believe we're really getting the truth out of any of these people, rather than just what they want us to see.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


Agreed. Still, the CIA is useful. It just needs proper control. In fact, even the EPA and other overly ambitious agencies are "useful". (Even if questionable from a 10th Amendment basis).

Well defined roles, proper leadership and oversight....bah...I'm dreaming, it won't happen.

Snowen is a traitor-he even admitted it. He took an oath-he broke it-now he must face the consequences. Which will be life imprisonment at a super max with crazy Ted and Ramzi if he ever shows his cowardly face outside Russia.

When the wicked witch of East Arkansas gets to the White House he is going to be a dead cowardly traitor.

I went over Feinstein statement and it appears this could go both ways. Exposing the Agency for spying could also expose Senators from gaining information on political rivals they have no right to see.

Senator Corker is going to comment on this in an internet discussion on his website later today-that should clear some of this up.

Making allegations against the Agency is always a double edge sword along with being careful what you wish for.

What is amazing about this is the fact that they bring this out in the open.

The Senate "Intelligence" Committee deals with mostly top secret information.

The fact that they are even discussing these things in public is suspicious in itself.

I think it's just an election year psy-ops.

They are deflecting something.

Something like who's to blame for all the recent "Revelations" along with all the rest of the dozens of Administration failures.

reply to post by xuenchen


Interesting point. She could have handled this in-house without this noise.

Off the top, it empowers the rhetoric of the right re: privacy violations. Yet, she goes public with it.

Theories?

Feinstein, or whatever her name is. Hoooblahah! Hypocriticizer! Sure... Gun are bad, ban them... Wait! There tapping us! This is unconstitutional! What a waste of embryo! She's a waste of life and useless. A puppet no more, no less doing the biding of the master pulling her strings. Pathetic.

nwtrucker
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Interesting point. She could have handled this in-house without this noise.

Off the top, it empowers the rhetoric of the right re: privacy violations. Yet, she goes public with it.

Theories?

I would think this would be considered "classified" information too.

Which means talking in public might be at least low level treason.

The MSM hasn't mentioned that yet as far as I know (but I bet it shows up soon when they read it here).

Their whole point is to instill the illusion that *All-of-a-Sudden* the Senate is *Oh-so-Concerned* about the Constitution even though the Constitution has been a dart board for some time now.

It's an election year ploy. Nothing else.

Democrats are very nervous.

Feinstein herself is NOT up for election this year which makes her the "front" for the operation.

reply to post by xuenchen


That's the probable scenario. I will give her a small...minuet chance that she tried to handle this "in house" and was unsatisfied/rebuffed. Perhaps, just maybe, she sees what's being done can apply to her/hers as well.

Doubtful though....

reply to post by nwtrucker


what about the drug running. and mind controlling opp's?

reply to post by American-philosopher


With the level of electronic surveillance these days, I'd guess insider trading by gov't agencies is much safer and cleaner than drug running....

Feinstein? Mind control? You have to have one before you can control it.....