The Trump Presidency

[Ooh-Rah]

Why are you freightened that he would question the IC? If Pres Bush would've done so, thousands of dead Americans might be alive today, and ISIS might not even exist.

I welcome and encourage the questions.

I do not think the questions should be asked by the President-Elect via Twitter.

I do not think the questions should be asked (publicly) in a way that insinuates the Intel Community is trying to convince people that Trump only won because Russia "fixed" the election.

 

[ThunderHorse]

This administration? This thread is about Trump and his first 100 days.

Post election, bringing up the current administrations actions from long ago doesn't do any good here.

Kerry on Israel, Carter on Syria...those are current actions. However, actions by the lame duck administration will have tremendous effect on the 1st 100 days!

 

[TLDR20]

Kerry on Israel, Carter on Syria...those are current actions. However, actions by the lame duck administration will have tremendous effect on the 1st 100 days!

Yes current stuff.

 

[Etype]

I welcome and encourage the questions.

I do not think the questions should be asked by the President-Elect via Twitter.

I do not think the questions should be asked (publicly) in a way that insinuates the Intel Community is trying to convince people that Trump only won because Russia "fixed" the election.

- Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.

- The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.

 

[TLDR20]

- Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.

- The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.

I think he could use a "mainstream media filter".

Like this article says, we should see more this coming week.

After weeks of tweeting, Trump and team face open questioning this coming week

 

[Il Duce]

Like this article says, we should see more this coming week.

After weeks of tweeting, Trump and team face open questioning this coming week

Agree, also found this editorial made points similar to how I have been thinking: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/o...est&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Brooks does a good job of summarizing the difficulty in making clear judgements about aligning what PE Trump says, and what will actually happen (or even what he intends to happen) - and where the power center(s) of this administration will be. I tend to believe running elements of the government takes a reasonable level of technical skill, so the large number of outsiders he's brought in to the administration will struggle to be effective regardless of their actual intentions. Still, there is always a level of turnover and varying degrees of experience/technical expertise in the upper echelons of any new administration. When PE Trump said in the debates 'HRC has experience but it's the wrong experience' I think he was reflecting a widely held view (amongst Trump supporters) that anything would be better than what we've had the last 8 years. I think anything is a wide spectrum - and a deep hole - so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

[Salt USMC]

- Trump uses Twitter to avoid the mainstream media filter.

- The only reason Russian involvement is in the news is because it's the excuse of the DNC and their shill network.

Four questions:

1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers? By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation. I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
3. Can you answer the first question without referring to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
4. Who, in your opinion, were members of the DNC's shill network?

ETA: I'm good at math

 

[TLDR20]

Four questions:

1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers? By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation. I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
3. Can you answer the first question without referring to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
4. Who, in your opinion, were members of the DNC's shill network?

I'm no math whiz, but that is four questions.

 

[Etype]

Four questions:

1. Does it not concern you that the President-Elect is using his twitter account to post abject falsehoods straight to his followers? By "abject falsehoods," I'm not referring to issues that are mere differences of interpretation. I'm talking about things that are demonstrably false.
2. What does the phrase "fact-check" mean to you?
3. Can you answer the first question without referring to either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?
4. Who, in your opinion, were members of the DNC's shill network?

ETA: I'm good at math

1.a. What, specifically, are you talking about?
1.b. It's not my preference, but he also says plenty that I agree with.

2. What does it matter? Go ahead and ask your follow-up question.

3. I did, but what a wasted opportunity!

4. CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, Politico, President Obama, the SJW syndicate...

 

[Rabid Badger]

I watched the first 30 minutes of the hearings (and actually watched all day) and had to re-wind to capture this foto:........which says, and along with the PEOTUS, stop wasting our time, stop spending our taxpayer money, stop crying like "Lumpers" (left leaning liberal looney-tune dis-barred lawyers} and let's get on with policing and governing this country.

You Libs had your chance, now it's our turn. I chuckle at you @amlove21 as you post a picture of Trump with the scythe and hammer. Do you really think Trump is going to ball lick Putin? This is one of those "wait and see" moments...but we can absolutely see your slant. Read the caption.... "NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUSSIA HAD ON OUTCOME"....and this from DNI Clapper... ZERO evidence, although my NDA has expired...I know yours hasn't........THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN....and none of your nonsense makes sense. Catch up and admit that McCain is a Rhino and needs to go, and that much of what you've read for the last year are MSM lies.

Topic of the convo" The First 100 Days: Repeal ACA....The Dims think (seriously, and with snowflake lumper tears) that the Repub Right don't have a replacement plan ready? Are you really serious right now? This is more MSM misdirection! The GOP had a replacement plan ready 6 years ago....right about the time Pelosi passed the bill in the middle of the night and stated we had to read it to see what was in it....That new repeal/replace bill will take effect soon after inaugural. THE WALL: When tractor trailers filled with new vehicles start stacking up at the US/Mexican border because the US companies refuse to pay import taxes, the Mexican government will aquiesce. When Mexican workers are put out of a job because companies that "were" moving to Mexico but are no longer, they will BEG to pay for a wall to export their wares. Mexico is on fire these days, in case no one has noticed....gas prices rising because US slowed oil exports, threats of wall re-construction, slowing exports from Mexico. The Red wall was constructed, the blue wall fell.

Get on board or lead from behind, as we, American Patriots, were forced to do for the last eight years by an ULTRA left POTUS.



LUMPERS:

 

[ThunderHorse]

LUMPERS:View attachment 17627

The Obamas licenses were never revoked. They chose to be voluntarily inactive, Michelle can activate her Illinois license by paying the BAR Association dues next year. President Obama has to do a little more since he changed his status to retired when he was elected President.

Now both the Clintons licenses were basically revoked.

 

[amlove21]

I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.

The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.

Fair enough- I am assuming that Russia was the one that hacked the emails and released them through a number of methods, because the assessment released today say so explicitly, and I am way, WAY out of my line to discount the professional opinions of our nation's IC. As stated in the report, "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies." (Pg 6).

I won't copy and paste every line of the assessment, but look at pages 7-10. It says in plain language that Russia used cyber warfare to disrupt/influence our election cycle for one candidate (PE Trump) over another (Hillary).

I suppose it is an assumption- the difference between my assumption (Russia influenced the election) and any other assumption (Russia did not influence the election) is that the top 3 intelligence agencies agree with me (or I with them) and no one has produced credible information otherwise. Unless you have information that the people that compiled the report are not privy to, the assumption has to be that the report's assessment is the most likely scenario. In my opinion, it's a bit intellectually dishonest to say something other than that without providing anything to the contrary. Saying, "It could have been some guy that speaks Russian" is a bit of a reach on no evidence, and it's certainly not enough of a hypothesis to refute the report.

As for your thought experiments- it looks as if you're saying, "Thank god (insert whoever you think hacked and released the emails if not Russia) hacked one of our political parties and influenced/degraded our election process, they saved us from Hillary and got my guy elected."

That worries me. People can hate Hillary all they want, but using an "ends justify the means" sort of argument here is pretty strange, considering that hurts us a nation in the long run.

You Libs had your chance, now it's our turn. I chuckle at you @amlove21 as you post a picture of Trump with the scythe and hammer. Do you really think Trump is going to ball lick Putin? This is one of those "wait and see" moments...but we can absolutely see your slant. Read the caption.... "NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW MUCH INFLUENCE RUSSIA HAD ON OUTCOME"....and this from DNI Clapper... ZERO evidence, although my NDA has expired...I know yours hasn't........THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN....and none of your nonsense makes sense. Catch up and admit that McCain is a Rhino and needs to go, and that much of what you've read for the last year are MSM lies.

Get on board or lead from behind, as we, American Patriots, were forced to do for the last eight years by an ULTRA left POTUS.

If what you mean by "my nonsense" or "my slant" is me agreeing with a published report from the nation's top three IC's because I am not willing to say I know better and no one is putting up any competing possibilities (non-Russian, fluent Russian speaking super hacker group theories aside), so be it. Nonsense it is.

Ad hominem and silly name calling aside- DNI Clapper did not say there was zero evidence, nor did he say Russia had zero influence on the election. The implication there is that while the assessment couldn't quantify how much, Russia most certainly did interfere with our election, the question is to what degree. I guess the only question I have is, do you value that assessment? If you don't, what information do you have that no one else does that leads you to believe it's not true? Do you distrust the CIA, FBI, and NSA on this matter and think they got it wrong or are maliciously saying this for some sort of gain?


And no, I 100% do not need to get on board with anything or anyone. It seemed to work just fine for you and the other American Patriots the last 8 years, so I am sure you'll be empathetic as to why I will vehemently oppose all this tomfoolery and will not just get on board and keep my mouth shut.



They do look good together though!

 

[Red Flag 1]

I wonder if Putin can talk Trump into loosing the comb over for the cleaner hairless look? That would take some serious negotiating.

 

[Etype]

...The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA)

The CIA-
- Headed by John Brennan, who has definitely carried some political water in regards to the CIA's drone program.
- Brought us the Iraq war.
- Provided wonderfully doctored reports on ISIS to support the President's narrative.

The FBI-
- Headed by James Comey, who read us a list of crimes committed by Clinton- a list of crimes who others had been previously prosecuted for. Mr. Comey then went on to tell us that he could find no criminal intent.
- The same FBI who also negotiated a quib pro quo involving a Brian McCauley email, which was pertinent to the Beghazi scandal.

The NSA-
- Probably the least credible of all of the intelligence agencies.
- IA policies brought us Mr. Snowden- incredible.
- Cited that the Russian email hack showed, "fingerprints of a Russian keyboard."

- So the hack occurred using the Russian language?

- There are, at least, thousands of US citizens who speak Russian fluently and access the internet in that language. Some of them even do it for OUR government. In fact, I would assume that the number of countries whose governments access the internet using the Russian language for intelligence purposes is in the triple digits.​

The aforementioned organizations are going through a time of record distrust and politicization, and it's not unfounded.

To think that they are credible in terms of political dealings is a stretch. To think that they are beyond reproach is downright insanity.

As for your thought experiments- it looks as if you're saying, "Thank god (insert whoever you think hacked and released the emails if not Russia) hacked one of our political parties and influenced/degraded our election process, they saved us from Hillary and got my guy elected."

That worries me. People can hate Hillary all they want, but using an "ends justify the means" sort of argument here is pretty strange, considering that hurts us a nation in the long run.

What I'm saying is, people who use bathroom email servers and Gmail to conduct campaign and state department business-
- Don't deserve to be president.
- Deserve to be hacked.

Argue that point.

 

[nobodythank you]

The CIA-
- Headed by John Brennan, who has definitely carried some political water in regards to the CIA's drone program.
- Brought us the Iraq war.
- Provided wonderfully doctored reports on ISIS to support the President's narrative.

The FBI-
- Headed by James Comey, who read us a list of crimes committed by Clinton- a list of crimes who others had been previously prosecuted for. Mr. Comey then went on to tell us that he could find no criminal intent.
- The same FBI who also negotiated a quib pro quo involving a Brian McCauley email, which was pertinent to the Beghazi scandal.

The NSA-
- Probably the least credible of all of the intelligence agencies.
- IA policies brought us Mr. Snowden- incredible.
- Cited that the Russian email hack showed, "fingerprints of a Russian keyboard."

- So the hack occurred using the Russian language?

- There are, at least, thousands of US citizens who speak Russian fluently and access the internet in that language. Some of them even do it for OUR government. In fact, I would assume that the number of countries whose governments access the internet using the Russian language for intelligence purposes is in the triple digits.​

The aforementioned organizations are going through a time of record distrust and politicization, and it's not unfounded.

To think that they are credible in terms of political dealings is a stretch. To think that they are beyond reproach is downright insanity.

This is inline with my view on these agencies. While the everyday workers I'm sure, bust their assess to do good work and report things as they see them, it is likely the administrators and leaders that are the problems for these agencies. While slightly different, I have personally seen a law enforcement agency's (one in a state capital and a fairly large one for the area) leader purposefully refuse reports on incidents if they did not meet a certain narrative criteria. Meaning they were kicked back until they read a certain way to avoid something uncomfortable, but maintain plausible deniability. There is virtually zero oversight or accountability when information is spun or doctored at the orders of the top administrator. What's worse is the underlings will typically be the ones held accountable in court if the deception is discovered. I realize this is anecdotal, but the same is likely true within the IC as the LE community. These people love what they do and don't want to lose their livelihood.

This is only one of many reasons why many of us distrust the IC and anything they put out. So, while many of us may not have damning evidence to contradict their reports, we are skeptical of anything released by them. Even on the odd chance they may be right.

 

[amlove21]

...snip...

Wait a second- when did we start talking about the NSA, CIA, and FBI engaging in "political dealings"? I am talking about the intelligence report assessing Russia influenced our election by various means in PE Trump's favor, and the subsequent reaction of PE Trump and his transition team.

I believe that those agencies can/do get things wrong. However, given the information we have right now, it's far more insane to say that our top 3 national intelligence agency are all malicious, negligent, and incompetent and nothing they do can be trusted. The way you frame it, you're implying that it's actually a concerted effort, near conspiracy. It's borderline tin foil hat zone. Can you please get me some sources are you reading that support your viewpoint? I am asking because I genuinely want to know where to find information that would help me understand your position. It doesn't have to be in the open, you can PM them, or just tell me stuff to look for.

What I'm saying is, people who use bathroom email servers and Gmail to conduct campaign and state department business-
- Don't deserve to be president.
- Deserve to be hacked.

Argue that point.

Flatly, no. Because that's not the issue, no matter how bad you want it to be. Your entire platform about Russia's hacking is basically "The NSA, CIA, and FBI can't be trusted you need to wake up sheeple" and "Hillary shouldn't be president she deserved to get hacked." We have tried desperately to get away from that rhetoric the entire thread and actually talk about PE Trump, his decades long business ties to Russia, how that affects his first 100 days and America as a whole, etc.

What do you need me to say, so we can all get past this negative feedback loop talking about a former SECSTATE that has no bearing on the conversation? My stance has always been, "I don't like Hillary, I don't think she's a good candidate." For months. I don't dispute the election. I don't think the election results were tampered with; PE Trump got smoked by nearly 3 mil in the popular vote and had one of the most narrow victories in the electoral college in history. I am not glad PE Trump won, because I think he's a steaming pile of shit topped with immature bravado. But I am also relieved that Hillary lost, because I don't think she should have been president either. Is everyone good now? Can we please talk about the actual topic and not your personal feelings about a 70 year old failed politician that you don't like?

As an American, I think that state-sponsored cyber terrorism, targeting any high ranking US official can not stand. It does not matter who it is. It doesn't matter if it was the fucking devil him/her/itself, enemies of America should not be able to exploit Americans.

As for PE Trump's transition team- Kellyanne Conway doesn't want to talk about the issue, but my question is this- when it comes time for PE Trump to make a military call, based on intelligence, how am I supposed to have confidence that he's taken in all the information and listened to SME's? At this point, I get the impression that he doesn't trust the intelligence community- so how do we get "ok" with that scenario?

 

[Etype]

...

It wouldn't be the first time those organizations have lied based on a political agenda- or even the third or fourth time.

He's not obligated to trust the IC, especially while it is still run by Pres Obama's appointees.

Hell, even in the world of intelligence, you aren't supposed to trust or distrust anyone initially- veracity always needs to be validated.

Lucky for you, it doesn't matter whether or not you have confidence in the president. Your job is to do what you're told.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Wait a second- when did we start talking about the NSA, CIA, and FBI engaging in "political dealings"? .

That's exactly what this whole thing has been about.

 

[alibi]

I'm assuming that you are assuming that the was Russians who hacked the emails, and that is how they interfered with the process.

The evidence is supposedly Russian keyboard fingerprints. So someone who speaks Russian may have hacked the accounts. still a big assumption that it was the Russian gov't.

--------------------------

Now let's play a little game.
Suppose someone you know uses steroids, or likes to best their wife.

That person is up for a highly contested position, and irrefutable evidence of his misconduct is brought up, but in a less than proper manner.

Now, are you going to tell everyone in your unit to disregard the misconduct because the evidence was obtained illegally? Or are you going to go forward knowing this person is a liability?

Hillary had skeletons in the closet, she didn't do a good job protecting or hiding them. Thank God they came out now and weren't held for her future extortion.

--------------------------

Second point on security-
A former SECSTATE who doesn't understand her IA training is an untrainable liability.

As a successful businessman, I would assume that Trump uses a VPN and a paid, secure, email server.

Podesta's hacked account was a Gmail account. It's laughable that a national political campaign would conduct business using Gmail. Was he using Starbucks WiFi on his iPhone, too?

If you use Gmail for anything other than coordinating beers and BBQ, you deserve to be hacked.

I'm glad the Hillary amateur hack squad is not going to be running the country.

The evidence is a bit more than the keyboard fingerprints. The implant toolchains found on the DNC network have been tied to Russian state actors for years.

This is an interesting twitter write-up of the Podesta phishing attempt.

APT29 (Cozy Bear) has professionally engineered and tested implants, that, in the past, have used 0-days in hard targets (Windows, Flash, various browsers) to compromise and persist on targeted hosts. They also, incidentally, keep Russian work hours and cease working on Russian holidays.

APT28 (Fancy Bear) has a phishing at scale operation that is a quite a bit more sophisticated than your run of the mill "give me your password in exchange for an iPhone" spam.

I think the keyboard fingerprints evidence was from Guccifer 2.0's claims that they were Romanian, not Russian, even though the evidence shows them using a Russian language VPN service. The Trump oppo dump that was released by them also had metadata indicating modifications by someone using a Cyrillic keyboard.

Both of those facts definitely point to organized and skilled nation-state teams. Combine that with the OPSEC lapses above and these groups known targets, by far the easiest conclusion (based on public evidence) is that this hacking was done by a group sanctioned and directed by the Kremlin.

 

[Etype]

...

So let's take it as a given that all facets of the USG are under constant cyber attack- which they are.

The best the DNC had to offer was either-
1. Unaware of this fact.
2. So arrogant that they thought the rules didn't apply to them.

Failure to perform E-4 level IA/OPEC tasks, and she wanted to be president???

Hahahahahaha