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

[metis]

It makes no difference who appointed him. (And if you think Bush doesn’t hate Trump you are kidding yourself) Brennan can call himself a woman trapped in a man’s body and Napoleon Bonaparte too, but that doesn’t make it true. His own words provide evidence of his political biases.

No, I think it's far more likely that you have a vivid imagination on this, probably because of what appears to be your undying support for Trump. You have presented not one iota of evidence for your belief whereas I have for mine even though I didn't post it. So, John O. Brennan - Wikipedia . I would be interested if you can find support for yours, so maybe give it a try, ok?

I've heard enough from Brennan to more likely believe he's a man very concerned about the direction that Trump has been taking this country and the general lack of morality that Trump's working from. And I would suggest that this should be of great concern to all who are concerned about the moral and political direction this administration is taking us. Since Torah established basic rules for leaders in eretz Israel that are based on moral principles, I would suggest that we should be wanting the same here in the diasporah.

To put it another way, "To cooperate with evil is evil".-- Gandhi.

 

[Shad]

How do you know what people don't care about. Your the one acting like nothing matters.

This very thread and how people are reacting gives me a clue.

Low priority not does not matter

If you want your information hacked thats your business. People take privacy seriously. Trivializing it doesn't sway the need for investigating and securing.

Impact matters. The rolls had zero impact atm.

It's all related.

It is fluff as no such attack occuried

Oh thank goodness you think its no big deal(shocking), I will just let the US and UK governments they have no need to question Zuckerberg.

My point was Russian meddling pales in comparison to the influence FB and other social media has along with the control each exercises until the facade of neutrality; Goggle, FB, Twitter.

By who, right wing media and partisan congressmen? Please

No by their own tweets

Its never been about Trump personally so him and his followers need to get over the investigation because its uncovering a mess.

Speculation

They picked Mueller because he is the most nonpartisan, trusted by both sided of congress. That likely worries Trump.

"partisan congressmen" Those same people you just dismissed? Now they are trust worthy?

Whether anything had any effect isn't quantifiable and is really beside the point of getting to the bottom of any laws broken.

The impact it had, or lack of, matters

 

[Stevicus]

No I don't think so, Trump makes even the GOP cringe half the time.

Maybe, but he is a product of our media and political system.

 

[Falvlun]

I skimmed them, looking for key points.

You complain of lack of evidence and specificity and then can’t be bothered to actually read through the specific evidence.

The phrase "we assess with high confidence" is just a way of saying "we are making a guess." That's double talk.

No, it is not. And until you understand the difference, until you can accept that the findings of every US intelligence agency, corroborated by the special counsel and outside evidence, is not merely a “guess”, then nothing I say will change your mind. Your position is evidence proof.

 

[Falvlun]

Russian trolls orchestrated divisive protests in the US about Trump — here are 9 that we know about

This article only mentioned one pre-election “pro-Hillary” rally. It mentions two anti-Trump rallies that occurred after the election. The rest were all pro-Trump.

Of the single “pro-Hillary” rally prior to the election, the article states:
“Around June 2016, the Russians started using a Facebook group called "United Muslims of America" to promote an upcoming rally in DC: "Support Hillary. Save American Muslims."

During that rally, they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom."

It is obvious this was not meant to aid Clinton. The sign quote was a complete fabrication. It was just another method to denigrate her— “Look! Muslims love her. And so scary, she’s for Sharia!”

It is clear the Russians were primarily promoting Trump, via rallies and social media, and most significantly, by hacking the DNC and releasing the data.

I see a different conclusion from the evidence than you do.

My conclusion is that Russia waged a sophisticated campaign to influence our election in favor of Donald Trump. What is yours? It seems like you accept that the Russians worked to influence Americans in the 2016 election, but do not think that it matters.

 

[Shad]

This article only mentioned one pre-election “pro-Hillary” rally. It mentions two anti-Trump rallies that occurred after the election. The rest were all pro-Trump.

Of the single “pro-Hillary” rally prior to the election, the article states:
“Around June 2016, the Russians started using a Facebook group called "United Muslims of America" to promote an upcoming rally in DC: "Support Hillary. Save American Muslims."
During that rally, they allegedly paid a real American to hold a sign portraying Clinton alongside a quote: "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom."

You asked about Trump rallies

It is obvious this was not meant to aid Clinton. The sign quote was a complete fabrication. It was just another method to denigrate her— “Look! Muslims love her. And so scary, she’s for Sharia!”

Smears were par for the course especially considering how Trump conducted himself, or lack of. Besides Hillary did a lot of damage with her own remarks regarding people that didn't vote for her. So one person holding a sign compared to national broadcasts of what Hillary thinks of people that dared not vote for her.

It is clear the Russians were primarily promoting Trump, via rallies and social media, and most significantly, by hacking the DNC and releasing the data.

You are speculating again.

My conclusion is that Russia waged a sophisticated campaign to influence our election in favor of Donald Trump. What is yours?

A failed attempts to influence the election at a major level. Hacking the DNC ended up exposing the DNC as corrupt so ironically shows that the DNC is a bigger threat to the elections than anything Russia did

It seems like you accept that the Russians worked to influence Americans in the 2016 election, but do not think that it matters.

I disagree with the impact and priority it has as a threat in comparison to some of the very organizations that support politicians in elections

 

[metis]

A failed attempts to influence the election at a major level.

But it is impossible to know that because we don't know what the results of the election would have been without the DMC posts coming out.

Hacking the DNC ended up exposing the DNC as corrupt

Where was it supposedly "corrupt"? Making stupid statements is not the same as being "corrupt". Which DMC members have been indicted as we have seen with the Trump camp? Which DNC members have already plea-bargained deals as we've seen with the Trump camp?

...shows that the DNC is a bigger threat to the elections than anything Russia did

And you really believe this? Maybe ask the Europeans if they agree with you.

What the Russians did was and is an attack on our democratic system that is still going on and not just some sort of video game.

 

[Shad]

But it is impossible to know that because we don't know what the results of the election would have been without the DMC posts coming out.

So the influence of meddling becomes moot. This favours my views in the end.

Where was it supposedly "corrupt"? Making stupid statements is not the same as being "corrupt".

The mails established that the DNC was pro-Hillary rather than neutral thus corrupt. The DNC lawyer used knowledge of corruption to get out of a lawsuit against that very issue.

Which DMC members have been indicted as we have seen with the Trump camp?

The investigation isn't about homegrown DNC corruption but Russia and the election.

Which DNC members have already plea-bargained deals as we've seen with the Trump camp?

See the above.

And you really believe this?

Yes as domestic corruption is a gateway to foreign influence. After all Trump and co are being investigation for collusion thus corruption. The differences at this time is that the corruption of the DNC was made public while the Mueller investigation has limited information to the public.

Maybe ask the Europeans if they agree with you.

Their opinion is irrelevant. If Europe was so concerned it was cut off it's natural gas and oil trade with Russia. It hasn't.

What the Russians did was and is an attack on our democratic system that is still going on and not just some sort of video game.

It is going to become part of the status quo until something changes in Russia or the US takes more aggressive actions. I would love to see serious repercussions but thus everything is a slap on the wrist, rhetoric and standard diplomatic bickering.

 

[Falvlun]

You asked about Trump rallies

I asked about anti-Trump rallies, and more broadly, evidence that the Russians were supporting “both sides”.

Smears were par for the course especially considering how Trump conducted himself, or lack of. Besides Hillary did a lot of damage with her own remarks regarding people that didn't vote for her. So one person holding a sign compared to national broadcasts of what Hillary thinks of people that dared not vote for her.

The point was that this was not meant to help Clinton. It is not evidence of Russian aid to the Clinton campaign.

You are speculating again.

It is the conclusion of our intelligence agencies that the Russian campaign was directed at promoting Trump and denigrating Clinton. The Mueller indictments back this up.

A failed attempts to influence the election at a major level. Hacking the DNC ended up exposing the DNC as corrupt so ironically shows that the DNC is a bigger threat to the elections than anything Russia did.

It’s interesting to see those parroting Russia propaganda while denying that it had any effect.

The DNC emails showed that the DNC favored Clinton over Bernie. That is not illegal or particularly corrupt. That’s the whole point of super delegates— they aren’t even hiding it. I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he never came close to Clinton’s vote count. I was disappointed but at the end of the day, it’s not rocket science that the DNC backed Clinton over an outsider.

I disagree with the impact and priority it has as a threat in comparison to some of the very organizations that support politicians in elections

I agree that there are more serious threats to our democracy. Citizens United and lobbying money in general has brought us dangerously close to oligarchy.

But it is noteworthy and disturbing that a foreign government can secretly work to elect their preferred candidate for president.

And actually, the willful ignorance and the denials of evidence are becoming even more alarming to me. Refusal to accept reality will only make us more vulnerable to future attacks.

 

[metis]

So the influence of meddling becomes moot. This favours my views in the end.

Not at all because it's the illegal process that was being used by the Russians, possibly aided and abetted by at least some in the Trump organization. Actions based on intent is what's important in any kind of criminal activity that could lead to possible convictions.

The mails established that the DNC was pro-Hillary rather than neutral thus corrupt. The DNC lawyer used knowledge of corruption to get out of a lawsuit against that very issue.

Why should the DNC be neutral? The DNC is the "Democratic National Committee", so why should that not be for their own candidate? And which lawsuit are you referring to?

The investigation isn't about homegrown DNC corruption but Russia and the election.

What "corruption", and how do you know it's "corruption" if there's not been any indictment nor any trial?

Their opinion is irrelevant. If Europe was so concerned it was cut off it's natural gas and oil trade with Russia. It hasn't.

Facts are not subject to whatever one's opinion may be, and the facts are that the Russians hacked into our electoral process as well as in some of the European countries. Anyone who really cherishes democracy should well know the threat that this presents to that process and to these countries.

 

[Stevicus]

You complain of lack of evidence and specificity and then can’t be bothered to actually read through the specific evidence.

You were making charges of "attacking democracy" and the general supposition here is that they have ill intentions towards America with some sort of goal for world domination - or something. That's what I was asking for when I asked for specifics and evidence. What you posted did not even come close to what I was asking for, and it was stuff I already knew anyway. So why should I bother reading through something I already knew?

No, it is not. And until you understand the difference, until you can accept that the findings of every US intelligence agency, corroborated by the special counsel and outside evidence, is not merely a “guess”, then nothing I say will change your mind. Your position is evidence proof.

I was asking for what you knew to be the Russians' plans to attack and destroy our democratic system. What are their specific plans? Do they plan to invade Europe? America? What is their plan? If you didn't know (just as our intel agencies don't really know), then you should have said so from the outset.

 

[Falvlun]

You were making charges of "attacking democracy" and the general supposition here is that they have ill intentions towards America with some sort of goal for world domination - or something. That's what I was asking for when I asked for specifics and evidence. What you posted did not even come close to what I was asking for, and it was stuff I already knew anyway. So why should I bother reading through something I already knew?



I was asking for what you knew to be the Russians' plans to attack and destroy our democratic system. What are their specific plans? Do they plan to invade Europe? America? What is their plan? If you didn't know (just as our intel agencies don't really know), then you should have said so from the outset.

You were the one interested in speculating about motives, not me.

You expressed doubt that the Russian government waged a campaign to influence our election in favor of Trump. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Presenting that evidence was my primary goal.

 

[Stevicus]

You were the one interested in speculating about motives, not me.

That's what I was asking about when I mentioned specificity and evidence. I wasn't asking for evidence that Russian trolls posted stuff on the internet, since I already knew that. You were the one trying to convince people of the urgency and seriousness of the Russians' alleged attacks on our democratic system, which would suggest that they had ill intentions towards America. This just by itself suggests speculation on motive, which is how we got to this point.

You expressed doubt that the Russian government waged a campaign to influence our election in favor of Trump. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Presenting that evidence was my primary goal.

I don't think I expressed doubt about that. In fact, I seem to recall suggesting just the opposite, in that many countries, governments and even foreign individuals might try to persuade and influence people to vote one way or another. I seem to recall saying more than once that anyone with a bag full of money could have done the same thing (and it would be naive to believe that such things haven't happened before).

 

[Shad]

Not at all because it's the illegal process that was being used by the Russians, possibly aided and abetted by at least some in the Trump organization.

Read my post again. If we do not know if the attempts influenced any votes then claiming influence of the election is moot due to lack of data. You toss in speculation in the end as if that matters.

Yes it is illegal. Government need to harden their networks.

Actions based on intent is what's important in any kind of criminal activity that could lead to possible convictions.

Sure but was the intent. The FBI report claims it was about discord but other narratives are repeated here and far more often. So are we talking about intent established by evidence or speculation regarding intent

Why should the DNC be neutral?

When it opens it's doors to non-members to run on it's ballot, primaries and potential be it's candidate then doing the opposite.

The DNC is the "Democratic National Committee", so why should that not be for their own candidate?

Then Bernie should of never been in their primary at all as he is not a democratic. All you are doing is agreeing with me that the DNC is not only corrupt but willing to lie to get what it wants while presenting another face to people like Bernie.

And which lawsuit are you referring to?

The lawsuit by Bernie supporters against the DNC.

What "corruption", and how do you know it's "corruption" if there's not been any indictment nor any trial?

As per the DNC email hacking. There are no laws covering internal corruption in that manner as in criminal law. Hence why there are civic lawsuits hence a trial.

Facts are not subject to whatever one's opinion may be, and the facts are that the Russians hacked into our electoral process as well as in some of the European countries.

Never denied that

Anyone who really cherishes democracy should well know the threat that this presents to that process and to these countries.

Best to start with your two party system, crony capitalism, gerrymandering of districts, etc. Compared to that Russia is trying to throw a peddle in a river in order to change it's course.

 

[Shad]

I asked about anti-Trump rallies, and more broadly, evidence that the Russians were supporting “both sides”.

Your question contained no such parameters. You asked about Trump rallies and I provide information on said rallies.

The point was that this was not meant to help Clinton. It is not evidence of Russian aid to the Clinton campaign.

And the Nov 2016 Trump is NOT my president rally supported Trump or.....

It is the conclusion of our intelligence agencies that the Russian campaign was directed at promoting Trump and denigrating Clinton. The Mueller indictments back this up.

Yet there were anti-Trump rallies as well. So much for that conclusion.

It’s interesting to see those parroting Russia propaganda while denying that it had any effect.

Cite said parroting otherwise I will simply dismiss this as a jab to score credibility without providing supporting evidence.

The DNC emails showed that the DNC favored Clinton over Bernie. That is not illegal or particularly corrupt.

It is corruption as they allowed a non-member into their primaries with good-will to the public yet did otherwise behind closed doors. So in the end you are left with the DNC played Bernie before or after allowing him into their primary.

That’s the whole point of super delegates— they aren’t even hiding it.

Except now a number of dems are coming out against super delegates due to the failure of Hillary and all the fallout Hillary is causing by not fading into obscurity

I voted for Bernie in the primaries, but he never came close to Clinton’s vote count. I was disappointed but at the end of the day, it’s not rocket science that the DNC backed Clinton over an outsider.

This is acknowledge of the corruption and bias.

Have you thought about the election if Bernie didn't join the DNC primaries? He could of ran as a 3rd party from the start. More so this reflects poor upon Bernie and his supporters in the fact you have acknowledge the stance of the DNC yet went along with it anyways. Looks like a fools errand.

I agree that there are more serious threats to our democracy. Citizens United and lobbying money in general has brought us dangerously close to oligarchy.

The oligarchy has already been established via the two party system. The exceptions are local elections and Bernie's niche which is a tiny populated state.

But it is noteworthy and disturbing that a foreign government can secretly work to elect their preferred candidate for president.

This has happened for decades. Look at Iraq. The US picked who would run during it's elections rather than allow the citizens to do so.

And actually, the willful ignorance and the denials of evidence are becoming even more alarming to me. Refusal to accept reality will only make us more vulnerable to future attacks.

Election influence has been a standard for decades. It is just no longer overt as technology has replaced a lot of on the ground work. Hacking has been ahead of the security curve for decades and does not seem to be slowing do. My lack of surprise is not ignoring reality. It does not have the shock factor. Hacking of government networks can be as simple as a government employee clicking a link.

 

[metis]

When it opens it's doors to non-members to run on it's ballot, primaries and potential be it's candidate then doing the opposite...

Then Bernie should of never been in their primary at all as he is not a democratic. All you are doing is agreeing with me that the DNC is not only corrupt but willing to lie to get what it wants while presenting another face to people like Bernie.

The DNC makes up its own rules, which is their prerogative.

The lawsuit by Bernie supporters against the DNC.

Which lawsuit? Bernie complained, and rightfully so (I voted for him in the primary btw), but I know of no lawsuit per se.

As per the DNC email hacking. There are no laws covering internal corruption in that manner as in criminal law. Hence why there are civic lawsuits hence a trial.

The DNC was hacked-- not hacking-- at least as far as we know.

Best to start with your two party system, crony capitalism, gerrymandering of districts, etc. Compared to that Russia is trying to throw a peddle in a river in order to change it's course.

We should be working on "all of the above", no doubt, but external threats are usually considered more dangerous. There's simply no reason why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, although with some of our politicians, ...

 

[Shad]

The DNC makes up its own rules, which is their prerogative.

Which lawsuit? Bernie complained, and rightfully so (I voted for him in the primary btw), but I know of no lawsuit per se.

Jared and Elizabeth Beck's case.

The DNC was hacked-- not hacking-- at least as far as we know.

I never said they hacked anyone.

We should be working on "all of the above", no doubt, but external threats are usually considered more dangerous.

I think the danger is overestimated.

There's simply no reason why we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, although with some of our politicians, ...

For me it about priorities and what can be done and what can not. Also international measures at this time amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. For example Europe could cut its natural gas and oil trade with Russia. That would cripple Russia. Yet nothing serious is done to punish Russia.