Thursday, December 15, 2016

Step through this logically...

So, the House Intelligence Committee requested a briefing regarding the Wikileaks election hacking from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence. The reason for the request was that recent reports being "leaked" are in conflict with official reports from these agencies regarding the election hacking.

To be fair, the FBI, NSA, and the Director all are still on record as stating that they have not found any direct ties between the hacking of the DNC and Hillary Campaign, and the actual Russian Government. The only party involved that apparently has changed their tune is the CIA, which has now been ordered by the President to do a full review of their intelligence.

Ironically, the only agency that refused to indulge the Intelligence committee was also the CIA, stating that they wanted to focus on the full review they are providing for the White House, and do not want to divulge any information until their review is complete.

Director Jame Clapper himself had stated previously in these committee briefings that the intelligence community lacked any strong evidence tying Russia to the WikiLeaks Disclosure. A briefing providing this very conclusion was last submitted to Congress on November 17th, nine days after the election was completed.

Obviously if these agencies (and the director) all stated less than a month ago that there was no direct link between the Wikileaks and the Russian Government, and now there are media outlets claiming that Putin himself is involved, that's a fairly substantial difference between the official information provided to Congress and the new unofficial conclusions being floated by the media.

The committee wanted to know if these differences come from new information gathered since Nov 17th, or if this was a matter of fresh eyes looking at existing information. The better question may be whether or not there really is either new evidence, fresh eyes, or anything of any substance that actually changed the conclusion.

Either way, they are entitled to the new evidence or new reasons for floating these new theories. Since the only people floating them is the CIA it would be logical that they come brief the Congressional Intelligence committees. This is nothing short of their constitutional duty to keep Congress informed (especially when they are leaking information involving specific allegations about Vladimir Putin). Their reasoning for not attending this briefing (when they attended all others) does not pass the smell test.


22 comments:

caliphate4vr said...

This sums up the whining Donks

opie said...

When you really think about it, trump used data taken from a hostile source for political gain. He also asked russia to find HRC's missing e-mails. IOW tacitly giving the russains card blanche to meddle in our election. What goes around, usually comes back in spades !! See flynn giving sensitive data to foreigners without permission...wasn't he a huge critic of HTC??? And goodness, he gets caught himself. The irony is palpable. LOL

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

As I predicted. CH is auditioning for a job as a spokesperson for his God the Second Coming, Donald J Trump.

The end of the world is near.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Logic??????????

Your ideology lenses gave blinded you.

You at one time, were logically outside the ideology of Trump Worship.

Praise the Trump Lord of the universe.

My God.

Vladimir Putin has replaced Saint Peter at the gates of the Coldheartedheaven. Praise the Lord Trump.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - you dispute nothing I wrote.

Which quite literally has nothing to do with Trump at all. Trump will not be effected by any of this. Period. He will be sworn in as President and he will serve his term(s).


This is a dispute between the intelligence communities themselves and the one going rogue at this point, refuses to provide Congress with any evidence of their leaked allegations.

I hope you follow this same belief "during" the Trump administration... that agencies head by Trump nominees can leak information to the media, and not be obligated to explain to Congress where they got it from.

Because that is what you are advocating here.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Bullshit.

The smell test is your rational for not investigated the leaks that might harm your God.

You have lost it.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
Bullshit.

The smell test is your rational for not investigated the leaks that might harm your God.

You have lost it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

instead of just calling bullshit, why don't you write a detailed and logical, rational response picking it apart point by point?

with an IQ as epic as yours it shouldn't take but just a minute or two.

Anonymous said...

Blogger C.H. Truth said...
Roger - you dispute nothing I wrote.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

has he ever?

C.H. Truth said...

Roger has the knee jerk reaction (when he inherently understands he is wrong) to simply insult me. Apparently that's one of those "progressive" traits that the left is so proud of.

There is no detailed analysis that can be provided to counter what I wrote, because my post was not analysis. It was a simple review of the facts.

Fact one: Eight days after the election and less than thirty days ago, the Director of Intelligence told the House Intelligence committee that there was no evidence that Russia (the Russian Government) was involved in the Wikileaks hacks. The Director is in charge of coordinating the NSA, FBI, and CIA.

Roger cannot dispute that... because it's simply a fact. Not analysis.

Fact two: Over the past couple of weeks there have been reports from your usual suspects (MSNBC, Politico, Washington Post) making claims that people within the CIA are leaking to them that there is evidence that Russia is involved in the Wikileaks. These are anonymous claims. The only people on record are those from other agency who are standing behind the original assessment.

Roger cannot provide us with anyone going on record with this. Because there are none. He can (as he has) ignored those who are on record (and dispute the claims). This means that Roger logically will believe unsubstantiated claims while simultaneously ignoring substantiated facts that differ.

Fact Three: The House Intelligence committee asked for the CIA to come forward with any new evidence (if there is any) or what new reasons there are to conclude "differently" than how this was reported to the HIC just a few weeks ago. The CIA refused.

Again, Roger cannot dispute this... because it's a fact. Not analysis. The House Intelligence committee is on record (as is the CIA) that the CIA refuses to provide the committee with any reason or information as to why they might believe differently than they did a few weeks ago.


Rather... Roger does what Roger does. Insult me. This is apparently how "liberals" believe you treat people that you often times refer to as "friends". You simply insult them if they provide "facts" that differ from your "beliefs".

Liberal trait?

I guess it must be.

Anonymous said...



LMAO:


A group of Senate Democrats will introduce legislation requiring President-elect Donald Trump to divest any financial assets that pose a conflict of interest and place the money into a blind trust.

The bill would also consider any violation by Trump of conflict of interest or ethics laws a "high crime or misdemeanor under the impeachment clause of the U.S. constitution," according to a fact sheet on the forthcoming bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office.

"The American people deserve to know that the President of the United States is working to do what's best for the country — not using his office to do what's best for himself and his businesses," the Massachusetts Democrat said.

Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin (Md.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) also back the legislation. They'll formally introduce the bill next month when lawmakers return to Washington.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/310537-senate-dems-rolling-out-bill-to-force-trump-to-shed-conflicts-of

Anonymous said...

Rather... Roger does what Roger does. Insult me. This is apparently how "liberals" believe you treat people that you often times refer to as "friends". You simply insult them if they provide "facts" that differ from your "beliefs".

Liberal trait?

I guess it must be.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

it's no wonder you blocked him on facebook.

btw, roger's beloved page views on the legacy blog have collapsed like an alky at an open bar.

if you are inclined to just take that blog down, feel free as far as i'm concerned. it wouldn't bother me one bit.



Anonymous said...

Vladimir Putin has replaced Saint Peter at the gates of the Coldheartedheaven. Praise the Lord Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

where's ol' joe mccarthy when you need him, eh rog?

LOL.

Anonymous said...



could i please get a translation here? -

"Labels: rrb is a racist rodent that our host supporters unequivocally"

thanks guys!


Commonsense said...

You are having too much fun.

Anonymous said...



Blogger Roger Amick said...
It looks today, that this claim of "fake" hacking quite foolish.

The Trump Loyalists are going to be embarrassed many times.




December 15, 2016 at 7:29 AM
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Our esteemed host also looked foolish when he claimed that this clause of the constitution does not apply to the President.

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

December 15, 2016 at 7:36 AM




C.H. Truth said...

A group of Senate Democrats will introduce legislation requiring President-elect Donald Trump to divest any financial assets that pose a conflict of interest and place the money into a blind trust.

Three words:

Snowball
Chance
Hell

C.H. Truth said...

In 1974, Nelson Rockefeller, a fabulously wealthy New York Republican, unexpectedly found himself on the verge of being confirmed by the Senate to the office of vice president, which had been vacated by Gerald Ford after he assumed the presidency. Senators had some concerns: Wouldn’t Rockefeller’s capacity to counsel the president on financial regulation, for example, be compromised by his family’s holdings in the Chase Manhattan Bank?

Rockefeller promised the Senate that, as a man of irreproachable integrity, he would never allow his private interests to cloud his official judgment—and in those clubby days of the Senate, such assurances counted for a lot. There was, of course, the sticky matter of the federal conflict-of-interest law, which prohibits “officers” of the United States from participating in any governmental action in which they have a financial interest, and would ostensibly limit the topics on which Rockefeller could advise the president. But after receiving a Justice Department letter affirming that the vice president and the president are exempt from that statute, the Senate felt free to confirm Rockefeller. He became vice president on December 19, 1974.

Anonymous said...

But after receiving a Justice Department letter affirming that the vice president and the president are exempt from that statute, the Senate felt free to confirm Rockefeller. He became vice president on December 19, 1974.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

but, but, but...

russian hack!!!

putin!!!

trump's bff!!!

squawk!!!

Anonymous said...

You are having too much fun.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

indeed.

and boy does it chap his ass.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are exploring a new strategy to pressure Donald Trump over his business conflicts of interest, arguing that an insider trading law would make it a crime for him to profit on information he learns as president.

The STOCK Act, adopted in 2012, was designed to restrict insider trading by members of Congress and their staff. But ethics lawyers say it also applies to the president and might extend to private holdings like Trump’s real estate ventures.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, who wrote the law, is having her staff meet with outside experts and Democrats on the House oversight committee this week to study how the law could apply to Trump’s White House. Of particular interest is how Trump might violate the law if he told his children information that they acted on or invited them to participate in a government meeting where they learned something and used the information to make money.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trumps-businesses-insider-trading-232660

opie said...

Funny how CH cherry picks what supports his tenet while leaving out some pertinent information. From the same article stolen by our esteemed host without attribution. Never changes his spots, does he. LOL

There is, however, a law outside of the conflict-of-interest statutes that could deter Trump from retaining his business interests while in office—and one that has received insufficient attention. Introduced in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it prohibits any senior “noncareer officer” of the government from permitting his or her name to be “used” by any firm that “provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship.” While the conflict-of-interest statutes exempt the president, the text of the use-of-name law does not, though its use in court would require the repeal of a 25-year-old executive-branch regulation that does exempt the president and vice president. As important, Congress explicitly said this statute was meant to ban the use of an officer’s name not only in traditional fiduciary-based firms, such as law partnerships, but in a range of other ventures including “real estate, consulting and advising, [and] architecture.” The U.S. Office of Government Ethics regulations that apply the law adopted this broad definition.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trump-holdings-conflict-of-interest/503333/


ANDREW STARK is a professor at the University of Toronto and the author of Conflict of Interest in American Public Life.
PREVIOUS

wphamilton said...

Funny the parallel with Trump's real estate and the millions Rick Perry made in TX real estate just after he got elected to State office. Ag Commissioner I think. If it worked for Perry, why should Trump be denied? Heck maybe Perry can give him some pointers in how to make those real estate deals helped along by government policy and still be "non-conflict-of-interest". He's got to be good for something, right?

And that several hundreds of millions in the TX business development fund, that went to Perry's big donors when he was Governor, Trump can learn from that no doubt. Just a matter of scaling it up.