Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[Ziggurat]

Give it up. If the intelligence agencies doing their jobs is sufficient to cause Trump to be concerned about them, the only person that reflects badly on is Trump. Trump is about as right to be concerned about them as thief is to be "right" concerned about the police.

What Morell was talking about wasn't actually their job.

It's amazing that one of Trump's actual critics within the intelligence community can recognize this but you're still in denial about it.

 

[lomiller]

What Morell was talking about wasn't actually their job.

Evidence?

It's amazing that one of Trump's actual critics within the intelligence community can recognize this but you're still in denial about it.

Your incredulity isn't exactly a convincing argument.

We have seen is that the intelligence community was concerned from that start that a Trump Presidency would be an issue for national security. This is NOT justification for Trump to attack the intelligence agencies. The only legitimate response would be for Trump to stop being so incompetent/corrupt the various intelligence agencies need to be concerned with him.

 

[Cain]

Right, so... the sympathetic view of Trump is that he's cartoonishly narcissistic and inept. And let's try to get the facts straight not by carefully reproducing context but focusing on what's important -- like spelling Morrrrell's name correctly. Anyway, enough talk, let's go invade Venezuela.

 

[CapelDodger]

What Morell was talking about wasn't actually their job.

It's amazing that one of Trump's actual critics within the intelligence community can recognize this but you're still in denial about it.

You're leaving-out something important.

"“So let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said. “What does he see?"

That's a narcissistic moron's shoes. Not Morell's. Morell's not telling us what he thinks, but what he pictures Trump thinking.

Morell retired in 2013, so is not a member of the intelligence community. I've yet to see any actual member of the intelligence publicly attacking Trump. Former members have, but that's hardly surprising - the man has, among other things, blurted out classified intelligence to Russian friends he was trying to impress, and gratuitously accuse GCHQ (a key intelligence ally) of tapping his phones on the orders of Obama, simply to paint himself as a victim. I'd be surprised if his critics in 2016 predicted he could do things as crass as that - it would come across as over-reaching.


Trump started complaining about the intelligence services being hostile only after they (along with several foreign agencies) discovered the Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election. He didn't complain about their hostility during his campaign, but of course at that point he didn't feel the need. Now he thinks it useful to trash US intelligence and whine about being victimised, so he goes ahead and does it.


Does he believe what he claims? I'm sure he does : he is, after all, a narcissistic moron. If you believe it, I suppose you have your own reasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

We have seen is that the intelligence community was concerned from that start that a Trump Presidency would be an issue for national security.

That's if we include former intelligence officers in the "community" : the agencies themselves have never made any such statement.

 

[davefoc]

[reasonable overview of the situation]


Does he believe what he claims? I'm sure he does : he is, after all, a narcissistic moron. If you believe it, I suppose you have your own reasons.

What exactly the president believes is difficult to know. He does lie consciously without remorse or apology. Take for instance the lies about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. But he lies with such sincerity that it difficult to figure out what his view of reality is.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yep.

And the FBI had a much dirtier record before some other agencies took over domestic spying on political protesters.

I remember when the Deep State was called The Man, and it was definitely right-wing.

So what? It's absolutely not relevant in this discussion.

Quite.

 

[CapelDodger]

What exactly the president believes is difficult to know. He does lie consciously without remorse or apology. Take for instance the lies about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians. But he lies with such sincerity that it difficult to figure out what his view of reality is.

Trump believes what it pleases him to believe, and it pleases him to think he's being victimised by great forces and yet triumphing. So much triumph, but he can never get sick of it.


He believes that the Russians didn't interfere in the election, and he believes that it had no effect, and he believes that they did it at the behest of Clinton and George Soros. And he won in the teeth of everything the FBI and CIA didn't do to damage his campaign. Triumph.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never said anything of the sort. In fact, the fact that Morell (would people start spelling his name correctly? There's only one 'r') was and is anti-Trump means saying that Trump had reason to distrust the intelligence community is an admission against interest. It lends credibility to his statement.
[snipped your personal insult]

So which is it, is Trump a crook or a dupe?

In Dec before a lot of information had come out about Trump, and with Morrell stating clearly he didn't know what the FBI had on Trump, Morrell said Trump might not be guilty, he might be a dupe. If that were the case Trump might have a reason to distrust the FBI.

Excusing/explaining some basis for Trump's paranoia is not saying Comey or the FBI were out to get Trump.

So what do we end up with? A man who lies dozens of times a day, who incessantly berates any and everything that is negative toward him, who is paranoid, might, just maybe have a thin thread of an excuse to misbelieve the FBI is spying on him and out to get him.

The FBI is out to investigate a crime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What Morell was talking about wasn't actually their job.

It's amazing that one of Trump's actual critics within the intelligence community can recognize this but you're still in denial about it.

I recognize it, I read the whole transcript. What you are doing is exaggerating the significance of that one little piece cherry picked out of the whole.

Morrell said, "maybe", "possibly", perhaps he shouldn't have openly stated his support for Clinton.

Trump takes little threads like this and blows them all out of proportion himself. A good example is Trump claiming Trump Tower was bugged and the FBI was spying on his campaign. Those two things did not happen but there is a thread Trump used to go there.

 

[Ziggurat]

The FBI is out to investigate a crime.

That wasn't primarily even about the FBI. The FBI is hardly the only intelligence organization in the US government.

And no, as a matter of fact, the FBI was not investigating a crime. When you investigate a crime, you're trying to figure out who committed a crime you know occurred. The FBI's investigation started to determine whether or not a crime even occurred.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... focusing on what's important -- like spelling Morrrrell's name correctly. ....

Dang, I left 2 'r's out of the name.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You say that like it's a one-way street. But it isn't. It never was.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/1...gence-agencies-treated-president-trump-574591

"“So let’s put ourselves here in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said. “What does he see? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden … criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he could rightfully have said, ‘What’s going on with these intelligence guys?’”

Morell continued: “Then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent. And then he gets his first intelligence briefing after becoming the Republican nominee. And within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.”

Morell said it’s no wonder President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies (which employ countless Obama holdovers even at the upper levels), given the constant press leaks and withering public condemnations from current and former officials."

The intelligence community's own hostility to Trump has already backfired.

Former and ex.

Why is their former employment a bar to them criticising the President?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That wasn't primarily even about the FBI. The FBI is hardly the only intelligence organization in the US government.

And no, as a matter of fact, the FBI was not investigating a crime. When you investigate a crime, you're trying to figure out who committed a crime you know occurred. The FBI's investigation started to determine whether or not a crime even occurred.

The crime was twofold, hacking the DNC and others, and a foreign government interfering in the election.

Reuters Aug 2016: the [server] attack was being investigated as Russian espionage

The FBI did not tell the Democratic National Committee that U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.

So the agents contacted the DNC in 2015. They were certainly investigating a crime at that time.

Where you get the idea the FBI started looking to see if there had been a crime? I think you may be confusing looking to see if there was a connection to the Trump campaign with investigating the Russian interference.

 

[Ziggurat]

Former and ex.

Why is their former employment a bar to them criticising the President?

I never said it was a bar. And the criticism was probably less damaging to trust than the leaks.

 

[Ziggurat]

The crime was twofold, hacking the DNC and others, and a foreign government interfering in the election.

The FBI never seriously investigated the DNC hacking, because the DNC prevented them from doing so.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's look at that article, shall we?

It's dated Dec 2017, citing a Dec 2017 article.

I think it's safe to assume Samantha Chang is a right-wing blogger given she's cherry picked and distorted much of what Morrell actually said in the cited article: Politico: the actual Morrell interview transcript.

I read the Chang piece, and fully concur.


Chang quotes this :

And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security advisor, Mike Flynn.

and that's accurate. The way Chang presents it, the fact that the "leaks" came shortly after the briefing means the intelligence services were the source, despite the fact that the briefing wasn't news to them. I think normal minds would see this as evidence that someone who heard the briefing made the leaks, rather than those making it. But, of course, Morell mentions this in the context of "How would a narcissistic moron with a victim complex see this?".


Whatever these "leaks" were, Trump didn't start raging against the intelligence services at the time. He saw no reason to. The leaks were aimed at Flynn from inside his own campaign, he knew that. There was no Russia investigation going on that he knew of, so no reason to blame the intelligence agencies.


When he does see a reason to blame the intelligence agencies, of course he sees it that way with every flabby fibre of his body.

Further to the leaks coming from Trump's entourage, we have it from his own dribbly lips that he runs his ship on conflict (it's the moron's way), in politics the leak is weapon of choice, and the Trump White House has been one of the leakiest ever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The FBI never seriously investigated the DNC hacking, because the DNC prevented them from doing so.

That must be why the link I posted said the FBI didn't tell the DNC that their servers had been hacked when the FBI first knew about it.

Not only did you not look at the link, you apparently didn't even read the quote I pulled from it.

Reuters Aug 2016: the [server] attack was being investigated as Russian espionage

The FBI did not tell the Democratic National Committee that U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think you may be confusing looking to see if there was a connection to the Trump campaign with investigating the Russian interference.

Confusing, obfuscating, whatever.

 

[Upchurch]

The FBI never seriously investigated the DNC hacking, because the DNC prevented them from doing so.

What? Source?