DescentBB

So what do you think about the intelligence community supposedly undermining Trump? Are you ok with something like withholding intelligence from the elected president? I'm generally ok with someone leaking actual evidence of a crime or other newsworthy story, (domestic surveillance, drone stuff) but not so much the leaking of an unverifiable claim.

It seems odd to me that some are placing faith in the so called deep state to "protect" democracy from an elected president.

Oh, ★■◆● ... Vander again watching some American news site. Other news does not exist in the world.

I imagine a Russian might have a unique perspective on such a topic. You are welcome to enlighten us.

Everything about this administration is so bizarre, I don’t know what to make of it.

So what I’m saying is…I can’t really give you an intelligent response. I’m just waiting to wake up from this nightmare.

I had suggested, pre-inaugural, that Trump might just be pissing off precisely the wrong people.....especially given his set of strengths and weaknesses.

But at what point do you have to side with the elected president over the unelected intelligence community?

"Hidden" autocrat society fights wannabe autocrat. Entertaining

After watching that recent Trump press conference, I'm leaning with siding with the intelligence agencies, elitists aside. At least most of them are at least mentally stable. Trump has exhibited some of the most bizarre and irrational behavior from a president I have ever seen. He's badmouthed the very same people he should be relying on to back him up in order to protect the country, which should bring up trust warning bells about the voracity of any "intelligence" he'd be given anyway. Why should he be given intelligence when all he does is look into the rear view mirror at personal petty crap that's clearly not something that's part of the job's main duties and then convene an incoherent press conference and gripe about insipid trash like a truculent 6 year old on cocaine. His weird fixations on past happenings and past election results is nothing but irrelevant drivel that's consuming him to the point he can't focus on the real job at hand. Personally, I'd be afraid that he do something stupid with any intelligence they'd give him, like use it for some personal vendetta, or grease someone's skids who helped him personally, instead of protecting Americans.

Thing I noticed about trump is not only is he a narcissist, but he has a severe entitlement mentality. As if he was taught failures are always other peoples' fault.

Vander wrote:But at what point do you have to side with the elected president over the unelected intelligence community?

you side with the Constitution which both are sworn to uphold, ideally.

Ferno wrote:Thing I noticed about Hillary is not only is she a narcissist, but she has a severe entitlement mentality. As if she was taught failures are always other peoples' fault.

Fixed it for you.

obsess much, NS?Hillary isn't a candidate, we're talking about the present now. And, seriously, can anyone imagine her giving that sort of a train wreck public presentation as the Cheetolini gave at that presser? Cost him a NSA apparently.

callmeslick wrote:obsess much, NS?Hillary isn't a candidate, we're talking about the present now. And, seriously, can anyone imagine her giving that sort of a train wreck public presentation as the Cheetolini gave at that presser? Cost him a NSA apparently.

I wouldn't mind Trump being replaced by a competent conservative republican. I never liked him- but then again, you'd call any conservative a 'fool and a nazi.'

callmeslick wrote:you side with the Constitution which both are sworn to uphold, ideally.

Is it unconstitutional to collude with a foreign government to win an election?

Hillary Clinton discussion is ---> that way.

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you side with the Constitution which both are sworn to uphold, ideally.

Is it unconstitutional to collude with a foreign government to win an election?

one would hope so. I know it is illegal, but where you run afoul of the Constitution directly, I don't know.

Hillary Clinton discussion is ---> that way.

I hope 'that way' is 2016 and before.

Vander wrote:I imagine a Russian might have a unique perspective on such a topic. You are welcome to enlighten us.

Yes, I can. Now I finish testing Ukrainian virus program, which always redirects the user to the Ukrainian sites with lots of advertising. There generally other information, other news and so on.
I think in the USA there is the same. The American media every day just literally stuffed it like a Christmas turkey the heads of english-language users of the Internet invented the news about Donald Trump. So often that you already can not talk about anything else.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:obsess much, NS?Hillary isn't a candidate, we're talking about the present now. And, seriously, can anyone imagine her giving that sort of a train wreck public presentation as the Cheetolini gave at that presser? Cost him a NSA apparently.

I wouldn't mind Trump being replaced by a competent conservative republican. I never liked him- but then again, you'd call any conservative a 'fool and a nazi.'

No. If Trump were to be impeached and kicked out of office, we'd get another guaranteed Republican, Mike Pence. But he'd be one of our first theocratic presidents, definitely not a Nazi or an Autocrat. As an Atheist, doesn't that scare you just a little bit NS?

Oh, and the new CIA boss, Mike Pompeo, has denied that our intelligence agencies are withholding information. Maybe some of those pissed off at Trump are some of the very same underlings who may be withholding information from their new Trump-picked boss as well. There's nothing like working for a couple of bosses you despise to the very core of your being.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... lding-info

Trump is also cleaning house of his national security critics too. I wonder if Trump will be able to replace people as fast as he loses them, or even find people that will tolerate working for him?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... ump-report

callmeslick wrote:one would hope so. I know it is illegal, but where you run afoul of the Constitution directly, I don't know.

That's the thing, barring some specific actions by Trump, I'm not sure it's unconstitutional or illegal. I think the legal jeopardy comes in if the foreign support is asked for instead of just being provided. Regardless of the legality, though, the ultimate outcome is basically the same. Which is why I think the intelligence community is alarmed. It can be considered an act of war. But if it isn't illegal, do we support the likely duped public's elected representative, or the unelected intelligence community?

I'm not sure I'm doing a good job trying to express what I'm thinking. Too many unknowns and too much nuance.

Nightshade wrote:but then again, you'd call any conservative a 'fool and a nazi.'

not really. I'm not given to such black and white thinking.

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:one would hope so. I know it is illegal, but where you run afoul of the Constitution directly, I don't know.

That's the thing, barring some specific actions by Trump, I'm not sure it's unconstitutional or illegal. I think the legal jeopardy comes in if the foreign support is asked for instead of just being provided. Regardless of the legality, though, the ultimate outcome is basically the same. Which is why I think the intelligence community is alarmed. It can be considered an act of war. But if it isn't illegal, do we support the likely duped public's elected representative, or the unelected intelligence community?

I'm not sure I'm doing a good job trying to express what I'm thinking. Too many unknowns and too much nuance.

make no mistake. Contact with a foreign intelligence service by a civilian is clearly illegal. Whether it rises to treason would be if the contact was with the knowledge of or intent to influence the US government(an election is a function of government).

It's not illegal to have contact with a foreign intel agent if you don't know they're an intel agent. (otherwise any foreign agent can easily compromise anyone). It's one thing to offer proof, but it's quite another to leak speculation or innuendo. (however believable)

For the sake of discussion, lets say the Trump camp didn't know they were in contact with Russian intel, and that they were simply in contact with what they thought were people who shared their worldview. This scenario is probably just as alarming to our intel community in the face of a foreign intel operation to influence our election.

But aren't we allowed to elect a President whose worldview is at odds with the intel community? That we may have been misled into doing so seems to me to be beside the point.