Former CIA Director John Brennan: "Our Future Is In Jeopardy"

[Falvlun]

The unproven claims of Russian meddling seems to have revolved around supposed trolls and facebook ads which supported and demeaned both sides.

Ah, yes. The “unproven claims” of our FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, and Special Counsel, corroborated by reports from our allies.

Unsurprisingly, you are dismissive about the extent and seriousness of the Russian meddling campaign— that’s ok, I’m glad our intelligence agencies understand the extent of the threat to our democracy. It is also incorrect to claim that both sides were treated the same by the Russians, when they clearly, and primarily, worked to aid Trump and denigrate Clinton, which is also backed up by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Special Counsel.

If you are going to stick your head in the sand, maybe find some sand that isn’t so obviously wrong.

Considering the recent proven revelations about the U.K. based Cambridge Analytica data mining and targetting of approximately 50 million facebook users, which do you think had more power to logically affect/effect the election results if it were possible?

“Hey guys! Look over there!”

Is there any reason why both couldn’t have worked in tandem to give us the right-wing caricature we currently have as President?

Also, why are you so willing to believe that CA had an effect while scoffing at the idea of the Russian government, the propaganda kings, having any effect?

 

[YmirGF]

But if he was so lackluster, then why did he get reappointed five times by both Democratic and Republican presidents? And if he was so partisan, why the Republican appointments?

How many here had even heard of Brennan before he was appointed CIA chief under Obama? My guess is that he simply did his job and didn't go near cameras that were not under his direct control.

There were ample indications that Trump was unhinged long before the election, and much of that concern was very obvious. Unfortunately, all too many ignored the warning signs.

If you want my honest opinion, I'd say that folks are worried that the Mueller investigation will come up with little red meat and so this card is being played to keep the hate machine alive. Granted, Trump throws them tidbits all too often, but when was the last time you heard imminent threat of North Korean Nukes? That is now in the past and the two are making noises about chatting. Who knew? Maybe, in this case, though crazy daring, Trump "in your face" nuttiness caused the North Koreans to ratchet back on the dialogue and threats.

 

[idav]

How many here had even heard of Brennan before he was appointed CIA chief under Obama? My guess is that he simply did his job and didn't go near cameras that were not under his direct control.


If you want my honest opinion, I'd say that folks are worried that the Mueller investigation will come up with little red meat and so this card is being played to keep the hate machine alive. Granted, Trump throws them tidbits all too often, but when was the last time you heard imminent threat of North Korean Nukes? That is now in the past and the two are making noises about chatting. Who knew? Maybe, in this case, though crazy daring, Trump "in your face" nuttiness caused the North Koreans to ratchet back on the dialogue and threats.

North Korea has been doing this song and dance since 2002 constantly being sanctioned and empty promises from North Korea. Id be more than happy if something comes of it and give Trump much credit if he talked with Kim but color me skeptical even if Kim promises Trump to stop the nuke stuff. Still I didnt hear anything wrong about what Brennan said though his Putin conspiracy was a bit speculative but he said as much.

 

[Shad]

You have repeatedly been asked to cite instances of Brennan lying and yet you haven't delivered. So, why doncha?

I was asked in relation to the video not anything else. I made my comments on the video already regarding his speculation and assumptions. No one bothered to ask anything outside that context.

Brennan was caught using the CIA to spy on Senate by the Inspector General of the CIA which he denied to the Senate. The CIA is not a domestic organization thus went outside it's mandate. He also supported torture during the Bush era. You can find this information online from a number of source on the left and right sides of media. You can also find the report exposing him online.

You heard a talking heading telling you what you wanted to hear regardless of what type of person he was.

 

[Shad]

Uh, that looks like expressed opinions, not factual errors. Care to try again?

Speculation based on nothing is an error. Making a conclusion without data is an error. Concluding the guilt of someone without evidence is an error. Him wrapping it up as an opinion does not remove those errors.

 

[Shad]

You can claim that Russian activity was not a threat, but that is in stark contrast to the opinions of those in our intelligence agencies.

I read the report. It contains no greater "threat" than standard media practice when one has an axe to grind. The Russian effort amounted to less than a percent of media of many forms blasting Hillary and Trump

However, the point of my post was to specifically point out your incorrect assertion that the Russian campaign was normal, with the implication that Trump is being singled out. As I have shown, 2016 was not normal and your talking point was incorrect.

Russia has used propaganda for decades against America. All it has done is change medium. FB trolls are not a threat. Holding rallies is not a threat. They did nothing more than any fanatic supporter for either candidate has done since the primaries. Hillary and Trump have done more damage to their campaign and post election than anything a Russian troll or rally has done.

Of course Trump is a target as he is a political outsider and lacks experience. His adlib speaking also making him vulnerable to attack.

 

[Shad]

However what was the misinformation?

As it is speculation presented by someone of authority in order to provide it credibility covering for the lack of evidence and charges.

You dont agree cyberwarfare has increased?

FB trolls isn't cyber warfare. I am more concerned about hacking of power grids especially considering parts of the American grid are connected to the Canadian grid. Two birds, one stone so to speak.

 

[Stanyon]

Ah, yes. The “unproven claims” of our FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, and Special Counsel, corroborated by reports from our allies.

Unsurprisingly, you are dismissive about the extent and seriousness of the Russian meddling campaign— that’s ok, I’m glad our intelligence agencies understand the extent of the threat to our democracy. It is also incorrect to claim that both sides were treated the same by the Russians, when they clearly, and primarily, worked to aid Trump and denigrate Clinton, which is also backed up by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Special Counsel.

If you are going to stick your head in the sand, maybe find some sand that isn’t so obviously wrong.


“Hey guys! Look over there!”

Is there any reason why both couldn’t have worked in tandem to give us the right-wing caricature we currently have as President?

Also, why are you so willing to believe that CA had an effect while scoffing at the idea of the Russian government, the propaganda kings, having any effect?

As far as intelligence entities agreeing, one leads the way and the rest fall in line so it's no surprise that they all agree.
As far as CA goes you are misrepresenting what was written (this seems pretty common around here) perhaps you may need to re-read and come up with a better reply than changing and dismissing it.
The question revolved around who logically would have more information to effectively use if it were possible to sway the vote with the tools stated.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Speculation based on nothing is an error. Making a conclusion without data is an error. Concluding the guilt of someone without evidence is an error. Him wrapping it up as an opinion does not remove those errors.

Yeah, I think your Russian-English dictionary has a bad definition of "error", or perhaps "opinion" or "speculation".

 

[esmith]

Yet another debunked conservative attempt to downplay what happened in the 2016 election:

“Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

There was a distinct escalation in election-directed cyber warfare during the 2016 election. This is the findings of the FBI, CIA, and NSA.

Quick question.
Why would Russia want to undermine the liberal Democratic order when I keep hearing that it is the conservative Republican order that starts wars, invades countries for their natural resources, attempt to force countries to be shaped in the political views of the US and attempts to thwart Russian influence in the world. Where the liberals are the peace loving kumbaya attitude, that wants a peaceful reset with Russia? It would seem that Russia would have preferred the Hillary who reflected this idea. That is unless she was seen as a war monger.

Or is it that they, the Russians, could see that given the history of the Democrats when it comes to protesting something that by having Trump win the election that it would cause considerably more split within the US than having the Hillary win. Republicans were just hoping that Trump would win but if he didn't, better luck next time.

 

[tytlyf]

Quick question.
Why would Russia want to undermine the liberal Democratic order when I keep hearing that it is the conservative Republican order that starts wars, invades countries for their natural resources, attempt to force countries to be shaped in the political views of the US and attempts to thwart Russian influence in the world.

Does not compute. But you did get the republican war mongering part correct.

Where the liberals are the peace loving kumbaya attitude, that wants a peaceful reset with Russia? It would seem that Russia would have preferred the Hillary who reflected this idea. That is unless she was seen as a war monger.
Just asking.

Since when do 'liberals' want a peaceful reset with russia?

 

[metis]

Talking head opinions? They are a dime a dozen.



I'm pretty sure the country will still be here by next election.

Except that "talking head" ran the CIA and was appointed by six presidents, not all from the same party.

And to simply dismiss what he's saying so lightly is like taking a high-dive into a pool but deciding not to check how deep the water may be. Carelessness can be very costly and in more ways than one.

 

[Falvlun]

Quick question.
Why would Russia want to undermine the liberal Democratic order when I keep hearing that it is the conservative Republican order that starts wars, invades countries for their natural resources, attempt to force countries to be shaped in the political views of the US and attempts to thwart Russian influence in the world. Where the liberals are the peace loving kumbaya attitude, that wants a peaceful reset with Russia? It would seem that Russia would have preferred the Hillary who reflected this idea. That is unless she was seen as a war monger.

Or is it that they, the Russians, could see that given the history of the Democrats when it comes to protesting something that by having Trump win the election that it would cause considerably more split within the US than having the Hillary win. Republicans were just hoping that Trump would win but if he didn't, better luck next time.

Ask the Russians. Their reasons are theirs; but the fact remains that they decided to meddle in our election in Trump’s favor.

If we’re speculating, having an inept and erratic person, who is in their debt and is inclined to see them favorably, as the President of their greatest challenger, would give them greater room to grow as a world power again.

Chaos is undoubtedly desirable to them as well. Trump stokes chaos. And yes, angering Americans and causing them to doubt their democracy is also desirable.

As far as Democrats being angrier than Republicans: seriously, do conservatives just not remember how they acted during Obama’s Presidency? They called him the anti-Christ. Their elected officials abdicated their role as legislators in favor of pure obstructionism. Obama was under a microscope. And Hilary was hated even more. Could you imagine what conservatives would do if they found out that a foreign government waged a secret campaign do get Clinton elected? They would be tearing this country apart. If we were lucky, she merely would have been impeached 6 mo ago.

So yeah, take your “let’s blame the victims!” mentality and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. It is not the fault of Democrats that the Russians decided to undermine our democracy in support of Trump.

 

[metis]

How many here had even heard of Brennan before he was appointed CIA chief under Obama? My guess is that he simply did his job and didn't go near cameras that were not under his direct control.

Normally CIA heads do keep a relatively low profile while they're in that position, but I've heard Brennan quite a few times in the last two years and he does have a real concern about this administration. And rightfully so, as it has panned out that he's correct as this administration must belong to the Scandal a Day Club.

If you want my honest opinion, I'd say that folks are worried that the Mueller investigation will come up with little red meat and so this card is being played to keep the hate machine alive.

I think it's more the pro-Trump people that are in a state of denial and panic as their super-hero and his groupies may be in a ton of trouble.

 

[Stevicus]

North Korea has been doing this song and dance since 2002 constantly being sanctioned and empty promises from North Korea. Id be more than happy if something comes of it and give Trump much credit if he talked with Kim but color me skeptical even if Kim promises Trump to stop the nuke stuff. Still I didnt hear anything wrong about what Brennan said though his Putin conspiracy was a bit speculative but he said as much.

One thing that could be a huge boost to Kim is if relations deteriorate between the US and Russia (or between the US and China). That's why all this Russia-bashing rhetoric coming from folks like Brennan will likely lead to more harm than good.

 

[metis]

It used to be that the Republicans were the more hawkish when it came to reacting to outside threats to this country, and yet what so many of them are doing is actually taking Putin's side through their denials and uncaring about what's going on. Why does Trump refuse to be critical of Putin; or the Russian meddling here and in Europe; or the poisonings linked to the Russians; or the invasions of a couple of countries by Russia; etc.?

And, again, if the Trump camp is so innocent, then why all the lying and the attempts to stop the investigations? Is it their blind loyalty to their hero-worshiping of Trump? Have we reached such a low in American society that morals no longer matter and our "super-hero" president can do anything he wants? How can one have a religious faith that teaches morality but then not apply it? What kind of "faith" is that?

 

[tytlyf]

At least Trump kept his promise to cut spending.

America's children and grandchildren will thank republicans

 

[Falvlun]

I read the report. It contains no greater "threat" than standard media practice when one has an axe to grind. The Russian effort amounted to less than a percent of media of many forms blasting Hillary and Trump

How did you calculate your “less than a percent” there?

I note the Trump won by a very slim margin in the states that gave him the electoral college victory. It need be only a nudge— if it was only a nudge.

It is not “standard media practice” to promulgate false news, or to pretend to be people they’re not, or to hack DNC emails, or to set up rallies, or to hire people to hold up signs supporting (or denigrating) a particular candidate, or to hack state voter rolls, or to so single-mindedly orchestrate an operation to get a particular person elected (and make sure another didn’t.) You can dismiss and dissemble all you want, but that’s not normal and it’s not good and it is considered a grave threat to our democracy by those charged with protecting it.

There is also the issue that it was a FOREIGN GOVERNMENT doing this. While pretending to be Americans.

Russia has used propaganda for decades against America. All it has done is change medium. FB trolls are not a threat. Holding rallies is not a threat. They did nothing more than any fanatic supporter for either candidate has done since the primaries. Hillary and Trump have done more damage to their campaign and post election than anything a Russian troll or rally has done.

So, you are ignoring the report that clearly stated this “demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”
Our intelligence agencies say that you are wrong that this has been happening for decades and you’re wrong that it has merely changed medium. How do you reconcile that?

Again, when you dismiss it as being no different than a fanatic supporter, you are ignoring what makes this a threat to our democracy: it was a foreign government doing this. Not Americans. A foreign government waged a secret campaign to convince Americans to vote for the person they wanted as president. How is that not troublesome to you?

Of course Trump is a target as he is a political outsider and lacks experience. His adlib speaking also making him vulnerable to attack.

I’m not sure how this makes things better.

“Of course Russians wanted Trump as president because he’s inexperienced and a loose cannon!”

 

[metis]

I was asked in relation to the video not anything else. I made my comments on the video already regarding his speculation and assumptions. No one bothered to ask anything outside that context.

Brennan was caught using the CIA to spy on Senate by the Inspector General of the CIA which he denied to the Senate. The CIA is not a domestic organization thus went outside it's mandate. He also supported torture during the Bush era. You can find this information online from a number of source on the left and right sides of media. You can also find the report exposing him online.

You heard a talking heading telling you what you wanted to hear regardless of what type of person he was.

Can you please provide links to these allegations of him supposedly spying on the Senate?

As far as I know, the biggest controversy with him was his allowance of "enhanced interrogation techniques" even though he opposed waterboarding. Either way, even though I am opposed to the use of those techniques, they were legal at that time.

But the fact remains, if Brennan was so bad, then why did six presents appoint him? If he is so partisan, why was he appointed by presidents from both parties? Here is Wikipedia's overview of him: John O. Brennan - Wikipedia

But the most important thing is that he clearly enunciates why he's so concerned by what's happening with this administration as everyone should be.

 

[Stanyon]

Ask the Russians. Their reasons are theirs; but the fact remains that they decided to meddle in our election in Trump’s favor.

If we’re speculating, having an inept and erratic person, who is in their debt and is inclined to see them favorably, as the President of their greatest challenger, would give them greater room to grow as a world power again.

Chaos is undoubtedly desirable to them as well. Trump stokes chaos. And yes, angering Americans and causing them to doubt their democracy is also desirable.

As far as Democrats being angrier than Republicans: seriously, do conservatives just not remember how they acted during Obama’s Presidency? They called him the anti-Christ. Their elected officials abdicated their role as legislators in favor of pure obstructionism. Obama was under a microscope. And Hilary was hated even more. Could you imagine what conservatives would do if they found out that a foreign government waged a secret campaign do get Clinton elected? They would be tearing this country apart. If we were lucky, she merely would have been impeached 6 mo ago.

So yeah, take your “let’s blame the victims!” mentality and throw it in the garbage where it belongs. It is not the fault of Democrats that the Russians decided to undermine our democracy in support of Trump.

Trump is just Trump and enough people wanted him elected in enough states for the electoral college to declare him the winner whether you like it or not. It seems you and a few others willfully set aside critical thinking and logic if it doesn't serve your purposes, it seems more about revenge at any cost than any real attempt at discussion or dialogue. So what if Obama was called the AntiChristo? So what if the Democrats attempted to use the cultivated,contrived social ideas of the day against Trump-racist, misogynist,etc. It seems they had their own way to describe an AntiChristo- the people spoke and Hillary lost, deal with it.