I'll answer your question if you answer mine: Yes, I am telling you no "nonpartisan careerists in our intelligence community" will save us if the President murders someone or does some super dumbass ****. That is empirically true. And by the way, that is not their job. My question: do you know the name of the person who is making the decisions to "surveil or attack" Russia?
There is a difference between "saving" and r"and damage mitigation". If the intelligence community, career subject matter experts, dont trust the President to n handling sensitive information, they probably have good reason to. Just from an outside public perspective we already know how loose Trump is with classified information such as disclosing Israeli intelligence to Russians. So there is precedent for a career intelligence officer to be worried. The people who are making these decisions are subject matter experts, unlike the President
You didn't answer my question. Jeez. Just call me libtard instead. . . . To the rest of you: anyone have a name of the person making the decisions to "surveil or attack" Russia?
First, I doubt they would publish the names of CI officers. Perhaps it was the cia director. Second trump has already divulged sensitive info to the russians. So the intelligence officers concerns were merited.
The "we have training courses in lying" CIA director? Seems like Democrats wanna attack some countries, Republicans wanna attack other countries. Every American wants at least two or three wars right now. . . . Lest we forget:
The same CIA that went against Trump and explicitly claimed that Iran was satisfying their end of the nuclear deal in Congressional hearings? Seems war mongering like. CIA careerists are not the ones holding defense contractor stock or are receiving donations from them. The Iraq War was started by the Bush adminstration misconstruing intelligence, not intelligence officials being war hawks.
What is your point? --The CIA went against the President of the United States. OK. --The CIA said Iran is NOT violating the nuclear deal. OK. --The Iraq war was started because of misconstrued intelligence. OK.
There are upteen US intelligence agencies who have the mandate to surveil and attack foreign governments. It is their job. It is what they do. The fact that Criminal in Chief does not understand their mandates and gets his “intelligence” from Fox and Friends is another matter.
I take it you're on the "let's surveil or attack Russia" train, then? Our President doesn't need to be in the loop?
Damn straight I am. russia has already been proven to attack and interfere with the U.S. presidential election in 2016 and the U.S. midterm election in 2018. I want the U.S. Intelligence to be working around the clock investigating and preventing that from happening in 2020. According to authorities, we have been doing this since 2012. And trump's own past history of divulging secrets to russians and history of defending russian actions has led to this: btw: https://ktla.com/2019/06/15/u-s-ramping-up-cyber-attacks-on-russia-ny-times/ Because, perhaps, message sent...
Where to start? There are 2.79 million civil servants employed by the U.S. government. Any President (and not just Trump) is not going to know what these people do everyday or even their main yearly accomplishments. More on point, there are likely 100s if not 1000s ongoing intelligence "activities" of the secret, need-to-know variety. The President is not going to know the details of each activity. Not enough time in the day. Now to Trump to specifically ... The Criminal in Chief has a daily intelligence briefing that has been shortened to less than a page, due his to inability to process any more information. The CiC does spend most of his mornings in executive time, watching Fox News morning shows. The CiC has shown that he is more interested in how he is portrayed in the news than say the job he got elected to do. The CiC also does not like to have Russia's melding in our elections brought to his attention ever. His frail ego can not accept that Russia's melding might have been the tipping point to his election win. Again, the CiC's concern is himself and not the country. Given the CiC's hostility wrt Russia's election melding, Trump has taught his direct reports to not mention it. Now if the CiC was of mind to, he could march his ass to whatever intelligence agency is running a Russian operation and make them tell him all of the soup and nuts. No one would stop him. No one would not "read him in". You can be mad at "someone" keeping the CiC out of the loop on Russian intelligence ops. But if the CiC is still out of the loop in a month, that is all on him. I fully expect that you in a month will then bring your righteous anger to bear on the CiC and his apparent incompetence.
Trump is an ass. He is also President of the United States. If you are OK with "intelligence officials" planting hostile software in a foreign country's power grid without the President's knowledge, that's on you. P.S. I don't care what you "fully expect" from me.
I have no idea why the NYT does what it does. But I see its effect here on this board. People say: "See how terrible the President is? While we need to surveil or attack Russia! Trump probably wouldn't even want to surveil or attack Russia. . . if we let the stupid President of the United States in on our good intelligence community's plan. Coz Russia is bad! Coz they surveil and attack. So we need to surveil and attack. Without the damn President of the United States. Trust the CIA instead." And see, when you start surveiling and attacking other countries without the President's knowledge, that's close to treason and insurrection. In other words, large and well-armed bureaus of the government are usurping the office of the President. Seriously . . . supposed "liberals" are fiercely insisting we must trust the CIA. Think about it.
Well the CIA is working for the United States and Trump is working for Trump. So whatever dishonesty exists from both them (and there is plenty to go around for both of them) one is done in an effort to protect the United States. The other is done out of personal greed.