Political Roundtable Part XIII

[dckingsfan]

Simply stating the US did this in the past during the cold war is not evidence of engaging in these activities in current time.

For sale:

[bealwithit]

Louise Mensch's SMOKING GUN today: Flynn, in an email to a young female Russian student he met in Cambridge, referred to himself as General Misha (Russian for "Mike")!!!!!! GOT HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mensch's Twitter has become my comedy outlet.

Her old Corbyn stuff was gold. She labeled everyone who voted for him an anti-Semite....then was caught in a Gary Johnson like moment having no idea what Zionism meant.

I honestly don't understand why people follow publicity hounds like this. Whatever your politics and POV on Trump, why fill your head with what clearly is complete nonsense? Even if a small percentage turns out to be accurate, will you really remember which ones were true or false? Isn't it more likely that you sort of believe the overall "feel" of her views, and thus having less a sense of what is actually factually accurate?

Uhh... yeah? I mean, if you have a working brain you're able to sort what she reports on with sources as being something that could possibly be true which later gets confirmed by mainstream outlets and then throw everything else in the trash because she's usually being accusatory, hyperbolic, paranoid, or factually incorrect in her almost hourly tweetstorms. No one here is saying she's the gospel, though there are many others that do if you check replies to a lot of her tweets and would be the sort of people you're talking about. Those people aren't helping.

The credit I give her is she clearly, somehow, has some very good sources. She's a... fun... twitter follow if you love following this Russia stuff like myself and her retweets from credible reporters and outlets is helpful. I'm gonna assume Pride isn't going to post any of her blog posts in here anymore so I think we can just move on from this.

[sfam]

What's the point here? CIA doing bad stuff doesn't legitimize anything Russia is doing.

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

[dckingsfan]

What's the point here? CIA doing bad stuff doesn't legitimize anything Russia is doing.

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

Well, OK. I guess the CIA is guilty as charged!!

The evidence? The fact that the world changed when the Soviet Union fell, and their mission dramatically shifted. The intel and defense community spent the next 10 years figuring out a new way to fund themselves (they changed to a capability-based acquisition approach over a threats-based acquisition approach). They now have an entirely new mission with a new body of knowledge concerning non-state actors as the primary threat. Budget-wise, they dramatically scaled back human intelligence for networks in country and significantly ramped up funding for signals and geo-intelligence. If they were still in the election business, they would have kept the HUMINT networks.

Bottom line, if you don't need evidence for your conclusions, then I guess any conspiracy theory will do. My guess is the CIA has leveraged alien technology to improve their surveillance. I don't have any evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure its true.

[dckingsfan]

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

Well, OK. I guess the CIA is guilty as charged!!

The evidence? The fact that the world changed when the Soviet Union fell, and their mission dramatically shifted. The intel and defense community spent the next 10 years figuring out a new way to fund themselves (they changed to a capability-based acquisition approach over a threats-based acquisition approach). They now have an entirely new mission with a new body of knowledge concerning non-state actors as the primary threat. Budget-wise, they dramatically scaled back human intelligence for networks in country and significantly ramped up funding for signals and geo-intelligence. If they were still in the election business, they would have kept the HUMINT networks.

Bottom line, if you don't need evidence for your conclusions, then I guess any conspiracy theory will do. My guess is the CIA has leveraged alien technology to improve their surveillance. I don't have any evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure its true.

Okay then... our hands our clean. hehehe

[sfam]

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

Well, OK. I guess the CIA is guilty as charged!!

The evidence? The fact that the world changed when the Soviet Union fell, and their mission dramatically shifted. The intel and defense community spent the next 10 years figuring out a new way to fund themselves (they changed to a capability-based acquisition approach over a threats-based acquisition approach). They now have an entirely new mission with a new body of knowledge concerning non-state actors as the primary threat. Budget-wise, they dramatically scaled back human intelligence for networks in country and significantly ramped up funding for signals and geo-intelligence. If they were still in the election business, they would have kept the HUMINT networks.

Bottom line, if you don't need evidence for your conclusions, then I guess any conspiracy theory will do. My guess is the CIA has leveraged alien technology to improve their surveillance. I don't have any evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure its true.

Okay then... our hands our clean. hehehe

Or Maybe the TechCamp program I created and brought technologists and civil society to in Kiev, Donesk and Kharkiv really were done with the goal of fomenting a revolution a year or two later. I may really have selected those technologists and NGOs in the hopes creating instability - part of a country-influencing US elite just like the Russians say. There certainly is a news story stating that.

[Induveca]

HUMINT has largely been replaced by SIGINT for the type of work you are referencing. Hacking someone's email can take 30 minutes and can be exponentially more effective for intel gathering than an embedded 2 year social engineering campaign by an actual person.

As means of communicating sensitive data changed, so did the means of collection. It's unsexy, boring mass data collection/analysis. And all governments around the world can't buy enough of it.....if it gives them the dirt on their opposition (foreign or domestic).

[sfam]

HUMINT has largely been replaced by SIGINT for the type of work you are referencing. Hacking someone's email can take 30 minutes and can be exponentially more effective for intel gathering than an embedded 2 year social engineering campaign by an actual person.

As means of communicating sensitive data changed, so did the means of collection. It's unsexy, boring mass data collection/analysis. And all governments around the world can't buy enough of it.....if it gives them the dirt on their opposition (foreign or domestic).

Right. Its lots better for information collection and decision making. Not to mention stealing military or business secrets.

[gtn130]

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

You're asking him to prove that the CIA has STOPPED doing something. The burden of proof is on you my dude

[gtn130]

I still don't get why we're even talking about the CIA, though. Why does it matter right now?

[gtn130]

What's the point here? CIA doing bad stuff doesn't legitimize anything Russia is doing.

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

I understand this point. That still doesn't mean that Russia and the US are somehow equivalent in any way. It also doesn't mean what Russia did regarding our election is any less bad. I literally don't understand why anyone wants to talk about the CIA doing bad stuff right now other than to obfuscate the actual issues at hand.

[dckingsfan]

What's the point here? CIA doing bad stuff doesn't legitimize anything Russia is doing.

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

I understand this point. That still doesn't mean that Russia and the US are somehow equivalent in any way. It also doesn't mean what Russia did regarding our election is any less bad. I literally don't understand why anyone wants to talk about the CIA doing bad stuff right now other than to obfuscate the actual issues at hand.

I think it clarifies rather than obfuscates - and here is why.

The two parties (Russia and the US) are clearly on opposite sides of an ongoing conflict. For Trump to meet and plan with the other side clearly steps over the line, no?

But we can't be naïve and say that the US doesn't have any measures of its own both overt (sanctions) and covert. We have a long history of involving ourselves in other nation's elections. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be pissed off that Russia influenced our election. We should be surprised that they tried it again (they did it during the Reagan election - didn't work so well).

And we should certainly take counter measures now that we know that the Russians actually have a way of manipulating elections, no?

[dckingsfan]

Evidence please? Whether its you or Donald Trump, simply stating the US is just like Russia doesn't make it so.

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

You're asking him to prove that the CIA has STOPPED doing something. The burden of proof is on you my dude

Nope, burden of proof is the other way around. Same way that the someone has to prove that the CIA no longer engages in torture. Or is it okay if they don't have to prove that either

[Wizardspride]

Mensch's Twitter has become my comedy outlet.

Her old Corbyn stuff was gold. She labeled everyone who voted for him an anti-Semite....then was caught in a Gary Johnson like moment having no idea what Zionism meant.

I honestly don't understand why people follow publicity hounds like this. Whatever your politics and POV on Trump, why fill your head with what clearly is complete nonsense? Even if a small percentage turns out to be accurate, will you really remember which ones were true or false? Isn't it more likely that you sort of believe the overall "feel" of her views, and thus having less a sense of what is actually factually accurate?

Uhh... yeah? I mean, if you have a working brain you're able to sort what she reports on with sources as being something that could possibly be true which later gets confirmed by mainstream outlets and then throw everything else in the trash because she's usually being accusatory, hyperbolic, paranoid, or factually incorrect in her almost hourly tweetstorms. No one here is saying she's the gospel, though there are many others that do if you check replies to a lot of her tweets and would be the sort of people you're talking about. Those people aren't helping.

The credit I give her is she clearly, somehow, has some very good sources. She's a... fun... twitter follow if you love following this Russia stuff like myself and her retweets from credible reporters and outlets is helpful. I'm gonna assume Pride isn't going to post any of her blog posts in here anymore so I think we can just move on from this.

Yep.

Not going to post any of her tweets in the future.

[gtn130]

Really. You think that the CIA is going to leave recent finger prints - this is really naïve.

I will do the counter - where is the evidence that the CIA has stopped covert activities that benefit the United States? Show me one shred of evidence. One shred where the CIA is now say - "we are no longer going to influence elections even if it would benefit the USA".

This is MUCH different that the fake news narrative. These are sanctioned, ongoing efforts that were put in place after WWII and have never stopped.

You're asking him to prove that the CIA has STOPPED doing something. The burden of proof is on you my dude

Nope, burden of proof is the other way around. Same way that the someone has to prove that the CIA no longer engages in torture. Or is it okay if they don't have to prove that either

No, you're saying the CIA does all this crazy stuff, and he's saying they aren't. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove.

[gtn130]

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

I understand this point. That still doesn't mean that Russia and the US are somehow equivalent in any way. It also doesn't mean what Russia did regarding our election is any less bad. I literally don't understand why anyone wants to talk about the CIA doing bad stuff right now other than to obfuscate the actual issues at hand.

I think it clarifies rather than obfuscates - and here is why.

The two parties (Russia and the US) are clearly on opposite sides of an ongoing conflict. For Trump to meet and plan with the other side clearly steps over the line, no?

But we can't be naïve and say that the US doesn't have any measures of its own both overt (sanctions) and covert. We have a long history of involving ourselves in other nation's elections. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be pissed off that Russia influenced our election. We should be surprised that they tried it again (they did it during the Reagan election - didn't work so well).

And we should certainly take counter measures now that we know that the Russians actually have a way of manipulating elections, no?

You still have yet to explain why any of the CIA's practices are relevant at all to this narrow discussion about Russian interference and Trump's role in it, but carry on.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[sfam]

Um, I think you are missing the point a bit.

It isn't that Russia was trying to influence our election - they have been trying to do so for quite some time. And yes, we have been trying to do that in many countries ourselves (and yes, recently).

The point is: if there was collaboration between the Russians and someone in the US (Trump's campaign staff), that takes it to a whole new level. That is collaborating with the enemy.

I understand this point. That still doesn't mean that Russia and the US are somehow equivalent in any way. It also doesn't mean what Russia did regarding our election is any less bad. I literally don't understand why anyone wants to talk about the CIA doing bad stuff right now other than to obfuscate the actual issues at hand.

I think it clarifies rather than obfuscates - and here is why.

The two parties (Russia and the US) are clearly on opposite sides of an ongoing conflict. For Trump to meet and plan with the other side clearly steps over the line, no?

But we can't be naïve and say that the US doesn't have any measures of its own both overt (sanctions) and covert. We have a long history of involving ourselves in other nation's elections. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be pissed off that Russia influenced our election. We should be surprised that they tried it again (they did it during the Reagan election - didn't work so well).

And we should certainly take counter measures now that we know that the Russians actually have a way of manipulating elections, no?

I would again point out that the stories of US impacting Ukraine's color revolution are bogus. My own experience points to this, as the techcamp events were considered early examples of the US's supposed clandestine involvement. So no, this is a false equivalency. It really is.

Russia attempts to impact democratic elections as a normal course of operations, the US does not. The US does other things, just not attempt to overthrow countries, primarily because we determined we suck at it, and the stories coming out did us more harm than good. It was flat out devastating to USAID, and the idea that the US does actual development aid so any hint of that stuff is really concerning. Had we really done stuff like this, Morsi would not have become President in Egypt, Noori Al Maliki would have been removed earlier, Modi would have lost, etc. By all accounts, this isn't a tool we currently use.

Regarding your second question bolded, most definitely YES. This is what's disturbing about Trump's denials and potential complicity into Russia's interference. This won't happen if the Manchurian candidate is our President.

EDIT: President Bush accepting the Hamas win. If there ever was a time the CIA would have done something, its here. We didn't. Like the Iraq WMD thing, Bush really believed they would choose Fatah instead of Hamas. We did nation building things with NDI and IRI going in to do party building, election building, civic participation outreach, and all sorts of democracy building stuff. We did not try to foment fake news against Hamas or any other type of information operations.

President Bush accepted the stunning election results in the Palestinian territories yesterday with a conciliatory tone, saying the landslide victory of the militant Islamic group Hamas was rejection of the "status quo" and a repudiation of the "old guard" that had failed to provide honest government and services.

"There's something healthy about a system that does that," Bush said at a news conference. He reiterated that he will not work with Hamas, formally known at the Islamic Resistance Movement, as a "partner of peace" until it renounces its goal of destroying Israel and disarms its militias. But he left unsaid what a Hamas-led government will mean for the distribution of U.S. financial assistance and for American involvement in trying to reach a peace deal.