MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
[There was more than the CIA stating the evidence to be supportive. The exact details - IP, Names, ... will never be known. This is another false analogy. If this is all it turns out to be then fine. The policy will be key.]
Ralph Walter McGehee (born 1928) served for 25 years in American intelligence, being a former case officer of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). His assignments were in East Asia and Southeast Asia, from 1953 to 1972. Since leaving intelligence work in 1977, he has publicly expressed views highly critical of the CIA. Ralph McGehee - Wikipedia
Last edited:
I think you jumped on the crazy train.You got to be kidding BP....
I was in the CIA for 25 years - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com/i-was-in-the-cia-for-25-years-2015-3
Mar 24, 2015 - Ralph W. McGehee is a veteran of two and a half decades with the Central Intelligence Agency. McGehee was recruited in 1952 and stationed ...
Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified reportthat Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.
The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.
As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016.
I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.
I am concerned both intelligence assessments were rigged for political purposes.
You may remember when Hillary Clinton claimed during the final presidential debate on October 19 that based on the October 7 ODNI/DHS statement, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails were an effort by Russia to interfere with the election.
Clinton’s remark was not accurate. Although the October memo said “the U.S. Intelligence Community” was confident that the Russian government was behind the alleged hacking, the October memo was drafted by only two intelligence organizations – ODNI and DHS.
Since it came out only a month before the presidential election and was co-authored by only two intelligence agencies, the October memo looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to produce a document to boost Clinton’s reelection chances. Its argumentation was very weak since it said the alleged hacking of Democratic emails was “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.
Friday’s declassified intelligence report on Russia hacking is even more suspicious. As Congressman Hoekstra noted, this report was drafted and cleared by only three intelligence agencies, not 17. DHS, which co-authored the October statement, added a brief tick to the new report, but did not clear it. The Office of Director of National Intelligence, which co-authored the October memo, did not draft or clear Friday’s report, nor did other members of the U.S Intelligence Community with important equities in this issue such as DIA and the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).
The declassified Russian report also lacks standard boilerplate language that it was coordinated within the U.S. Intelligence Community. This language usually reads: “This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community” or “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”
Given how politically radioactive the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has become, why wasn’t the January 6 Russia report an intelligence community-coordinated assessment? Why were several important intelligence agencies and their experts excluded?
It also is important, as Hoekstra indicated in his Fox interview, that intelligence community assessments on extremely controversial issues include dissenting views, such as those added by INR to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD program. A declassified version of this estimate was released in 2002 that included INR’s dissent.
The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.
It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.
This is not to say the new CIA/NSA/FBI report is without value. I believe the classified report probably includes solid evidence on the intensive and broad-based cyber warfare efforts that Russia, China and other states have been conducting against the United States for the last eight years that President Obama has ignored.
I am encouraged that President-elect Trump responded to this report by stating that will take aggressive action against cyber warfare against the United States in the early days of his administration.
At the same time, I believe President-elect Trump and his team are justified in questioning the January 6 report as politically motivated.
I am concerned that the exclusion of key intelligence players and the lack of dissenting views give the appearance that the conclusions of this report were pre-cooked.
I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.
Adding to the Trump team’s concerns time intelligence agencies were are playing political games over possible Russian interference in the election is the fact that at the same time these agencies were refusing to brief Congress about their findings on this issue they were constantly being leaked to the news media. The most recent press leaks, some by intelligence officials, occurred this week on the classified contents of the new Russia report before they were briefed to Mr. Trump.
The new intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election broke so radically with the way objective and authoritative intelligence community assessments are supposed to be produced that it appears to have been rigged to support a pre-ordained set of conclusions to undermine President-elect Trump. I believe the October 2016 memo and related developments support this unfortunate conclusion.
It is vital that the Trump administration and U.S. intelligence agencies move beyond this situation by working together to forge new policies to protect our nation against the many serious threats it faces, including radical Islam, cyber warfare, nuclear proliferation, Russia, China and other threats.
Intelligence agencies were led astray by the Obama administration’s partisanship and national security incompetence.
I am confident that over time, the outstanding men and women Trump has named to top national security posts will ensure that America’s intelligence agencies have Trump’s confidence and produce the hard hitting and objective intelligence he will need to defend our nation.
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of "Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests" (Praeger, May 30, 2002
Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.
The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.
As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016.
I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.
I am concerned both intelligence assessments were rigged for political purposes.
You may remember when Hillary Clinton claimed during the final presidential debate on October 19 that based on the October 7 ODNI/DHS statement, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails were an effort by Russia to interfere with the election.
Clinton’s remark was not accurate. Although the October memo said “the U.S. Intelligence Community” was confident that the Russian government was behind the alleged hacking, the October memo was drafted by only two intelligence organizations – ODNI and DHS.
Since it came out only a month before the presidential election and was co-authored by only two intelligence agencies, the October memo looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to produce a document to boost Clinton’s reelection chances. Its argumentation was very weak since it said the alleged hacking of Democratic emails was “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.
Friday’s declassified intelligence report on Russia hacking is even more suspicious. As Congressman Hoekstra noted, this report was drafted and cleared by only three intelligence agencies, not 17. DHS, which co-authored the October statement, added a brief tick to the new report, but did not clear it. The Office of Director of National Intelligence, which co-authored the October memo, did not draft or clear Friday’s report, nor did other members of the U.S Intelligence Community with important equities in this issue such as DIA and the State Department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR).
The declassified Russian report also lacks standard boilerplate language that it was coordinated within the U.S. Intelligence Community. This language usually reads: “This memorandum was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was coordinated with the US Intelligence Community” or “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”
Given how politically radioactive the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election has become, why wasn’t the January 6 Russia report an intelligence community-coordinated assessment? Why were several important intelligence agencies and their experts excluded?
It also is important, as Hoekstra indicated in his Fox interview, that intelligence community assessments on extremely controversial issues include dissenting views, such as those added by INR to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD program. A declassified version of this estimate was released in 2002 that included INR’s dissent.
The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.
It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.
This is not to say the new CIA/NSA/FBI report is without value. I believe the classified report probably includes solid evidence on the intensive and broad-based cyber warfare efforts that Russia, China and other states have been conducting against the United States for the last eight years that President Obama has ignored.
I am encouraged that President-elect Trump responded to this report by stating that will take aggressive action against cyber warfare against the United States in the early days of his administration.
At the same time, I believe President-elect Trump and his team are justified in questioning the January 6 report as politically motivated.
I am concerned that the exclusion of key intelligence players and the lack of dissenting views give the appearance that the conclusions of this report were pre-cooked.
I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.
Adding to the Trump team’s concerns time intelligence agencies were are playing political games over possible Russian interference in the election is the fact that at the same time these agencies were refusing to brief Congress about their findings on this issue they were constantly being leaked to the news media. The most recent press leaks, some by intelligence officials, occurred this week on the classified contents of the new Russia report before they were briefed to Mr. Trump.
The new intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election broke so radically with the way objective and authoritative intelligence community assessments are supposed to be produced that it appears to have been rigged to support a pre-ordained set of conclusions to undermine President-elect Trump. I believe the October 2016 memo and related developments support this unfortunate conclusion.
It is vital that the Trump administration and U.S. intelligence agencies move beyond this situation by working together to forge new policies to protect our nation against the many serious threats it faces, including radical Islam, cyber warfare, nuclear proliferation, Russia, China and other threats.
Intelligence agencies were led astray by the Obama administration’s partisanship and national security incompetence.
I am confident that over time, the outstanding men and women Trump has named to top national security posts will ensure that America’s intelligence agencies have Trump’s confidence and produce the hard hitting and objective intelligence he will need to defend our nation.
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of "Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests" (Praeger, May 30, 2002
Would have been better if he had omitted the pro Trump crap at the end. But it's pretty clear several violations of the Hatch Act occurred leading up to the election. Not sure any actual laws were violated later; maybe lying to Congress under oath, but most of Congress knows damn well it's a circus and fully supports it.
tenpoundsleft
Member
Good post, some minor redundancies there, maybe you stitched together from several pages.
A good read, but will likely be entirely lost on the livid liberals.
Yeah, I was driving at the time and there were a bunch of adds in between paragraphs.
Just another Republican. Why would a democrat be impressed? Just another POS to me, just like your president. I look forward to watching his presidency and the republican party in general crash and burn. Fuck the alt right fascist swine.
Just another Republican. Why would a democrat be impressed? Just another POS to me, just like your president. I look forward to watching his presidency and the republican party in general crash and burn. Fuck the alt right fascist swine.
God you're a moron. Now you and Scally can be blocked together. Two clowns I don't care to read anything from going forward.
I'm the moron? Just today I saw that lying motherfucker who snowed your stupid ass say he never made fun of the handicapped? It is on tape bitch.
Another point and none of my fascist brethren commented, How the fuck can you vote for a draft dodging fucking piece of human waste after he belittled John McCain because he was captured? You fucking idiot. Your pres is a POS.
I'm going to have fun the next 4 years rubbing that draft dodging narcissistic sociopath in your face.
There will be more to follow.
That's already been debunked.
"five men of Middle Eastern appearance who were arrested in New Jersey that day for “puzzling behavior,” mistakenly interpreted as joy, were later released without charge; they were Israelis, not Arabs.)"
I would think a lot of you would remember this, but maybe not. I'm not sure what "puzzling behavior", mistakenly interpreted as joy" means... and yes they were released. If your interested in who and what they were, do some research and you will have a better clue as to "why" they were released.
When and if we recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and it looks like we will, we will have given the middle East, which is fractured and at war with one another and alway's has been, a common bond.
We need a professional standing military and mercenaries who know what and why they are fighting, and it makes no difference. What I personally don't like is a government that lies to the youth of this country and sends them off to die; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (Pat Tillman comes to mind). If we want to build an empire I've got no problem with that, just be up front about it. There are many men in this country who are born warriors and will go wherever and whenever they are needed, regardless of the reasons...Unlike many of us armchair warriors.....
I would think a lot of you would remember this, but maybe not. I'm not sure what "puzzling behavior", mistakenly interpreted as joy" means... and yes they were released. If your interested in who and what they were, do some research and you will have a better clue as to "why" they were released.
When and if we recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and it looks like we will, we will have given the middle East, which is fractured and at war with one another and alway's has been, a common bond.
We need a professional standing military and mercenaries who know what and why they are fighting, and it makes no difference. What I personally don't like is a government that lies to the youth of this country and sends them off to die; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (Pat Tillman comes to mind). If we want to build an empire I've got no problem with that, just be up front about it. There are many men in this country who are born warriors and will go wherever and whenever they are needed, regardless of the reasons...Unlike many of us armchair warriors.....
This shit just gets crazier everyday. Trump knows no boundaries. He is a textbook megalomaniac. A blind man could see that, and Trump would probably mock him for being blind. I do believe he could gun someone down in the middle of 5th ave and the Trumpies would still vote for him.
Unfucking believable. People like you destroyed several continents 70 years ago dipshit. Fuck you moron.
