• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former Top Intelligence Chiefs: Trump Being ‘Played’ By Putin

Mycroft said:
There are only 3 people who "concluded with high confidence"...and they all have zero credibility. Clapper, Brennan and Comey are all proven political hacks and liars. One other agency head gave the issue "moderate confidence". Guess which one still has a job. Guess which one still has credibility.
Click to expand...

You sound like a Russian sympathizer...Is Putin paying you?
 
apdst said:
Clapper lied, under oath, about illegally surveilling American citizens.



Brennan hacked into the computers of members of The United States Senate, then lied about it.

These are the real enemies, yet YOU support them, because they are bashing President Trump.

The real crime is that Clapper and Brennan aren't in jail.
Click to expand...

Really? They're the criminals, but the ones who were colluding with Russia to influence our elections aren't?

Dude. What Clapper and Brennan did doesn't hold a candle to what J. Edgar Hoover did. That doesn't excuse them by any means...but it is an outrage that y'all are defending a president who not only knowingly lied when he said that none of his team had met with or communicated with any Russians, but even instructed his son to lie about the meeting he had with the Russians (who btw had direct connections to the Kremlin). There is NOTHING that Clapper and Brennan did that even comes close to what the president of the freaking United States has done - and continues to do - in his attempts to obstruct the investigations of him and his team.
 
lurchadams said:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...1e9e4b0e37d2f37ffb3?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009



In this one instance, Clinton was correct. Trump is Putin's puppet.
Click to expand...


Bill Clinton said Putin always kept his word.
W Bush looked into Putin's soul.
Obama furtively promised to have more flexibility with Vlad after the 2012 election.
Trump said he'll believe Putin's denial because he needs Putin.

Putin's pretty good at schmoozing US Presidents and ****ing with our institutions.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Really? They're the criminals, but the ones who were colluding with Russia to influence our elections aren't?

Dude. What Clapper and Brennan did doesn't hold a candle to what J. Edgar Hoover did. That doesn't excuse them by any means...but it is an outrage that y'all are defending a president who not only knowingly lied when he said that none of his team had met with or communicated with any Russians, but even instructed his son to lie about the meeting he had with the Russians (who btw had direct connections to the Kremlin). There is NOTHING that Clapper and Brennan did that even comes close to what the president of the freaking United States has done - and continues to do - in his attempts to obstruct the investigations of him and his team.
Click to expand...

We know that Brennan illegally spied on U.S. senators, then lied about it. We also know that Clapper illegally surveilled American citizens, then lied under oath about it.

Those are proven facts.

When you discover that much proof that President Trump committed a crime, then I'll condemn him for it.
 
Mycroft said:
There are only 3 people who "concluded with high confidence"...and they all have zero credibility. Clapper, Brennan and Comey are all proven political hacks and liars. One other agency head gave the issue "moderate confidence". Guess which one still has a job. Guess which one still has credibility.
Click to expand...
Oh stop the bull****, it's entire agencies formal assessments, anyone can read it here: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf You're effectively saying Putin, and Trump, have more credibility on whether or no Russia meddled in the U.S. election, than the reports from the published "Intelligence Community Assessment", which includes CIA, FBI, NSA. Keep misleading people, it fits right in with Putin and Trumps' misinformation campaign.
 
apdst said:
Being "confident" isn't confirmation/verification of definitive facts.
Click to expand...

What routine, widespread intelligence assessments include this ficitonal concept of "confirmation/verification of definitive facts?
Name a few well know examples, so we can see how they compare.

You're full of ****, everyone can look it up anyway:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
Click to expand...

You are contrasting this to what : xxx <-- apdst is going to show us the evidence to the contrary
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Lulz. Any rationalization while you're whistling past the graveyard, eh?
Click to expand...
But, but, it's not absolute zero, therefore it's not cold! What trolling.
 
Mach said:
What routine, widespread intelligence assessments include this ficitonal concept of "confirmation/verification of definitive facts?
Name a few well know examples, so we can see how they compare.

You're full of ****, everyone can look it up anyway:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


You are contrasting this to what : xxx <-- apdst is going to show us the evidence to the contrary
Click to expand...

From your source:

We have high confidence in these judgments
Click to expand...

"High confidence" isn't definitive proof.
 
Mach said:
Oh stop the bull****, it's entire agencies formal assessments, anyone can read it here: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf You're effectively saying Putin, and Trump, have more credibility on whether or no Russia meddled in the U.S. election, than the reports from the published "Intelligence Community Assessment", which includes CIA, FBI, NSA. Keep misleading people, it fits right in with Putin and Trumps' misinformation campaign.
Click to expand...

CIA - Brennan - political hack and liar.

FBI - Comey - political hack and liar.

DNI - Clapper - political hack and liar.

NSA - Rogers - not a political hack, not a liar, did not have high confidence in this assessment.

Yes...I would believe Trump and Putin over the first three of that bunch every time.
 
apdst said:
Clapper lied, under oath, about illegally surveilling American citizens.



Brennan hacked into the computers of members of The United States Senate, then lied about it.



These are the real enemies, yet YOU support them, because they are bashing President Trump.

The real crime is that Clapper and Brennan aren't in jail.
Click to expand...

Those two former top U.S. intelligence officials are embarrassments to the country. Maybe not as bad as Susan Rice &
Samantha Power & Victoria Nuland but embarrassments non the less.
 
slick said:
Those two former top U.S. intelligence officials are embarrassments to the country. Maybe not as bad as Susan Rice &
Samantha Power & Victoria Nuland but embarrassments non the less.
Click to expand...

It's very telling that the AT's use Brennan and Clapper to beat up on President Trump.
 
This is hilarious given how long the American Brain Trust has been so wrong about Putin.
 
apdst said:
From your source:"High confidence" isn't definitive proof.
Click to expand...
You dodge the question again:

1. What routine, widespread intelligence assessments include this ficitonal concept of "confirmation/verification of definitive facts?
Name a few well know examples, so we can see how they compare.
You're full of ****, everyone can look it up anyway:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


2. You are contrasting this to what : xxx <-- apdst is going to show us the evidence to the contrary
 
Mycroft said:
CIA - Brennan - political hack and liar.
FBI - Comey - political hack and liar.
DNI - Clapper - political hack and liar.
NSA - Rogers - not a political hack, not a liar, did not have high confidence in this assessment.
Yes...I would believe Trump and Putin over the first three of that bunch every time.
Click to expand...

Wow. At least your honest in your absurdity.
 
Mach said:
You dodge the question again:

1. What routine, widespread intelligence assessments include this ficitonal concept of "confirmation/verification of definitive facts?
Name a few well know examples, so we can see how they compare.
You're full of ****, everyone can look it up anyway:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


2. You are contrasting this to what : xxx <-- apdst is going to show us the evidence to the contrary
Click to expand...

Still no confirmation/verification? Only "highly confident"?
 
apdst said:
They all hate President Trump, so their opinions lack credibility.

Clapper lied to Congress. His credibility is crap.

Why do folks think they can keep dragging these troughheads out of the closet every few months to say the same thing a different way and expect it to mean anything?
Click to expand...



When you step in it, you do with both feet and head first.

"They" all hate president Trump?

You know this how? By reading posts in here?

Have you EVER given a Trump opponent five minutes to explain their reasons? Or, are you exactly the same as Obama supporters who pulled the race card at every criticism.

Two, "Clapper lied to Congress. His credibility is crap."

Trump has lied to the American people hundreds of thousands of times and continues to do so.

But you still think HE has credibility even though EVERY BOAST he has made is highly questionable at best.

It seems you are extremely biased, so it's your credibility that's "crap."

I will pause now for your usual level of venomous personal attacks to mask the fact I exposed orange boy for the most dishonest president in history and biggest liar among world leaders.

Lies really are a ****ing dead bird around your neck
 
Mycroft said:
CIA - Brennan - political hack and liar.

FBI - Comey - political hack and liar.

DNI - Clapper - political hack and liar.

NSA - Rogers - not a political hack, not a liar, did not have high confidence in this assessment.

Yes...I would believe Trump and Putin over the first three of that bunch every time.
Click to expand...


LOL! No rational adult here believes that you wouldn't.

Odd standard that you're using tho', seeing as Putin and especially Trump are both liars.
 
Fearandloathing said:
When you step in it, you do with both feet and head first.

"They" all hate president Trump?

You know this how? By reading posts in here?

Have you EVER given a Trump opponent five minutes to explain their reasons? Or, are you exactly the same as Obama supporters who pulled the race card at every criticism.

Two, "Clapper lied to Congress. His credibility is crap."

Trump has lied to the American people hundreds of thousands of times and continues to do so.

But you still think HE has credibility even though EVERY BOAST he has made is highly questionable at best.

It seems you are extremely biased, so it's your credibility that's "crap."

I will pause now for your usual level of venomous personal attacks to mask the fact I exposed orange boy for the most dishonest president in history and biggest liar among world leaders.

Lies really are a ****ing dead bird around your neck
Click to expand...

Comey, Clapper and Brennan have all lied to Congress. We don't KNOW how many times that bunch has lied to the American people, but it's certain to be more than Trump.
 
apdst said:
Still no confirmation/verification? Only "highly confident"?
Click to expand...

You can't answer because you're full of **** as usual.

You dodge the question , 3rd time?
1. What routine, widespread intelligence assessments include this ficitonal concept of "confirmation/verification of definitive facts?
Name a few well know examples, so we can see how they compare.
You're full of ****, everyone can look it up anyway:
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf


2. You are contrasting this "High Confidence" to what : xxx <-- apdst is going to show us the evidence to the contrary[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom