Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

Your interpretations of things continue to baffle me.

Why? First of all, we're typing all this stuff---errors, omissions, and misunderstandings are bound to happen.

Second of all, you spent your career dealing with secret squirrel stuff. Where you laid your head, I'm sure, was classified much of the time, no? So of course my understanding and interpretation of this stuff is going to be different from yours.

You do not surrender any rights, so long as the officials empowered to use FISA comply with the law.

Ok, even I know this is wrong. Combing through email and phone records can and will get my data even though there's no probable cause. But setting that aside, the complete rules for FISA procedures are classified. We have no clue what they're doing. Period.

Obama expanded access to FISA intel well beyond what was necessary & it was abused, by his Admin, for political purposes. The flaw was in the officials who abused FISA & the POTUS who gave them access, not in the FISA law.

Circular reasoning, my friend. What the heck do I care whether it was for political purposes (your opinion, by the way, not a fact) or because Obama ate Grape Nuts that morning, and decided to use FISA in an abusive way?

I told you it was ripe for abuse. The abuse happened. 1+1=2.

Hey, speaking of these abuses, anyone make any changes to the FISA procedures to guard against future abuses? Nope. So when this happens again, who cares, right?

Show me previous abuses of FISA for domestic political purposes.

I can't. It's classified, remember? Heck, the bulk of the info. we get on FISA activities is either through leaks, or second or third hand from some Congressman. We have no clue what's going on there, and likely never will. As a citizen, I'm not at all happy about that.

You seemed to advocate that as a taxpayer, you're entitled to know any & all evidence gathered, in any investigation, so leaks are ok with you.

I've said no to this question three times now. Are you trying to be a member of the MeToo club? No means no, old salt. No, i'm not ok with the leaks. What I have argued is the immediate de-classification of information that has zero to do with national security....in other words, follow the doggone classified document laws. Seems like a simple thing to ask. I don't understand why you're not on board with that.

There are limits to what can be classified, despite what you or the Heritage Foundation claim. It's right there in the CFRs.

Your interpretation of my 2 citations baffles me

Well how about we ignore that part, then? As you know, you are continuously editing your posts, and it's confusing the heck out of my responses!

[Trinity]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/em ... kie-speier

Everyone in this Cabinet has a Russian partner, once removed from Deripaska. Such a coincidence. What does Trump tell Putin every time they sneak off alone? That’s right. We don’t know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/us/n ... tions.html

NRA seeks distance from Russia.

[dislaxxic]

When one thinks of FISA abuse the very first two things that come to mind are SHRUB BUSH and DICK CHENEY.

Let's get some spin from Old Salty about why what they did re FISA is different from what happened in the present instance he so vociferously decrys??

..

[old salt]

When one thinks of FISA abuse the very first two things that come to mind are SHRUB BUSH and DICK CHENEY.

Let's get some spin from Old Salty about why what they did re FISA is different from what happened in the present instance he so vociferously decrys??

dis -- you cite no specifics of intercepts being leaked for political purposes & ignore the fact that Sec 702 was tightened up in 2008, with overwhelming bi-partisan support, & reauthorized in 2016, with more safeguards (& the support of Schiff & Pelosi)

Your whataboutism does not hold up in this case. These aren't your "business as usual" leaks of over-classified informantion.

If you & afan don't buy my contention that the intercepts leaked against Trump are unprecedented, pay attention to a couple unbiased experts in the field :

https://www.lawfareblog.com/merits-supp ... d-rule-law

even in our world of regular leaks of classified information, those leaks represent the breaking of taboos—about leaking FISA information about a U.S. person and doing so for political purposes—that, as we both have written, are profoundly troubling. We suspect that many who support those leaks in the immediate context may soon come to regret them since the norms that were broken serve important values and may be hard to restore. Those emergence of those leaks may well call for increased protection in the handling of classified materials, but they do not go to the legal or operational justifications for foreign intelligence collection in the first place. It is reasonable to argue that at some point, if the government cannot be trusted to responsibly prevent privacy-harming leaks of the fruits of incidental collection, then greater limits should be placed on such collection. This is one of the serious dangers of the U.S. persons leaks and should be weighed in the balance. But right now, and especially in light of the enormous overall value of the 702 program, we are persuaded by the counterargument that has prevailed—namely, that the leaks can and should be addressed as a distinct concern.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/leaks-arent ... be-ignored

...CNN reported that

Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.

One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on whether the Russians had leverage over Trump's inner circle. The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence that Russians believed "they had the ability to influence the administration through the derogatory information."

This is potentially very significant for the ongoing investigations into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. A foreign adversary claiming to believe it could influence a presidential administration—contrary to President Trump’s prior claims—is on no set of facts less significant than the fact that such information was disclosed to the press. So, no, the leaks aren’t the “real” story here.

However, we can’t ignore the leaks either.

This marks at least the second time highly-specific information regarding signals intelligence collection has been publicly revealed in the Trump-Russia affair. The first was back in February, when media outlets reported that—contrary to express denials by the White House—former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak. That information was probably known because Kislyak, as the agent of a foreign power, was subject to communications monitoring. The revelation lead to Flynn’s forced resignation.

At the time, both Adam Klein and Tim Edgar wrote about the troubling nature of the Flynn disclosures on Lawfare. Certainly both were right about the extraordinary nature of those disclosure and the difficult questions they raise. I cannot recall any other time in which the contents of FISA intercepts were disclosed to the media in this manner. The Flynn disclosure posed security risks to sources and methods by revealing that a precise communication channel had been compromised. And, as both Tim and Adam noted, it violated laws and guidelines designed to protect not only security but civil liberties as well.

It may be true in a functional system that leaks ease secrecy restrictions to mitigate issues of public trust. With the Trump administration, however, the liability is not external, with the leakers aiming to fortify the President and federal bureaucracy against public perceptions of illegitimacy. Instead, the bureaucracy mistrusts and fears President Trump himself.

One need not condone the leaks in that instance to view them at least in part as an adaptive response to a system failure. Rightly or wrongly, those who viewed Flynn as a national security threat may have justified the leaks as the only available response to the failure of the President to take action to mitigate the threat and the compounding failure of the White House lying to the public.

Whatever mitigating circumstances might have been offered in defense of the Flynn leaks, however, simply don’t exist here.

There are now two viable channels available to individuals who might be concerned about the Trump administration’s improperly interfering to prevent this information from being investigated or addressed. There are active congressional investigations, one of which is credible, and there is the Russia investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The existence of available alternative channels makes it especially difficult to justify these particular disclosure, which involve signals intercepts information regarding Americans. Information to, from, or about “US persons” is treated with extraordinary care by the statutes and guidelines governing signals intelligence. The nature of foreign intelligence surveillance requires different standards for collection than we are accustomed to in domestic law enforcement. Because US citizens information is sometimes acquired in contexts where the ordinary procedures safeguarding constitutional rights are unavailable, requiring that the information be handled with particular care is one way to mitigate the heightened risks. One of the most important protections is that information is not shared outside the proper channels or for purposes that are not consistent with foreign intelligence or law enforcement.

To publicly reveal this kind of US persons information for political purposes is an abuse. To the extent there were open debates over whether that is what happened to Michael Flynn, it seems clear that this newest information was leaked in order to increase political pressure on the President. That sets a dangerous precedent.

Disregarding the sanctity of information collected for foreign intelligence purposes, risks eroding the important civil liberties protections embodied by that sanctity. The strongest protection is rooted in broad principles about how this type of information should be used, not personal assessments about the greater good. Those who feared that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Flynn episode would invite a general loosening in the degree of care are being vindicated by both the newest leaks and the current climate generally. It is now open season on leaks of classified information. Despite Trump’s finger pointing, the worst offenders seem to be within his own White House. Yet, this latest story is clearly sourced to former intelligence officials, and it implicates a category of intelligence in which the breach of faith with the American people is especially grave. The response to leaks is always more leaks, as various actors seek to clarify or even mitigate harm. While ultimately the issue here is at the top, it is a mistake for current and former intelligence officials to play the White House’s game and respond by becoming careless with the protection of secrets we keep for very good reasons.

For individuals who have serious concerns regarding the conduct of the President and his inner circle, it is tempting to turn a blind eye to these disclosures. The President’s statements about leaks give rise to concerns that he is seeking to distract from questions about his own behavior and relationships, questions about which the American people are entitled to have answers. And there is genuine risk that the White House will seek to use investigations into leaks as a pretext for engaging in political retaliation against those they percieve as opponents. The result is a perception that acknowledging the gravity of these leaks legitimizes or plays into the White House’s false and dangerous narrative.

These are perilous times. We face questions regarding the intentions, conduct, and honor of our own President and his inner circle that bear—without exaggeration—on the future health of our Republic. That is why it is now more important than ever to insist that individuals entrusted with access to sensitive information be worthy of that trust.

[old salt]

When one thinks of FISA abuse the very first two things that come to mind are SHRUB BUSH and DICK CHENEY.

Let's get some spin from Old Salty about why what they did re FISA is different from what happened in the present instance he so vociferously decrys??

dis -- you cite no specifics of intercepts being leaked for political purposes & ignore the fact that Sec 702 was tightened up in 2008, with overwhelming bi-partisan support, & reauthorized in 2016, with more safeguards (& the support of Schiff & Pelosi)

If you & afan don't buy my contention that the intercepts leaked against Trump are unprecedented, pay attention to a couple unbiased experts in the field :

https://www.lawfareblog.com/merits-supp ... d-rule-law

even in our world of regular leaks of classified information, those leaks represent the breaking of taboos—about leaking FISA information about a U.S. person and doing so for political purposes—that, as we both have written, are profoundly troubling. We suspect that many who support those leaks in the immediate context may soon come to regret them since the norms that were broken serve important values and may be hard to restore. Those emergence of those leaks may well call for increased protection in the handling of classified materials, but they do not go to the legal or operational justifications for foreign intelligence collection in the first place. It is reasonable to argue that at some point, if the government cannot be trusted to responsibly prevent privacy-harming leaks of the fruits of incidental collection, then greater limits should be placed on such collection. This is one of the serious dangers of the U.S. persons leaks and should be weighed in the balance. But right now, and especially in light of the enormous overall value of the 702 program, we are persuaded by the counterargument that has prevailed—namely, that the leaks can and should be addressed as a distinct concern.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/leaks-arent ... be-ignored

...CNN reported that

Russian government officials discussed having potentially "derogatory" information about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and some of his top aides in conversations intercepted by US intelligence during the 2016 election, according to two former intelligence officials and a congressional source.

One source described the information as financial in nature and said the discussion centered on whether the Russians had leverage over Trump's inner circle. The source said the intercepted communications suggested to US intelligence that Russians believed "they had the ability to influence the administration through the derogatory information."

This is potentially very significant for the ongoing investigations into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia. A foreign adversary claiming to believe it could influence a presidential administration—contrary to President Trump’s prior claims—is on no set of facts less significant than the fact that such information was disclosed to the press. So, no, the leaks aren’t the “real” story here.

However, we can’t ignore the leaks either.

This marks at least the second time highly-specific information regarding signals intelligence collection has been publicly revealed in the Trump-Russia affair. The first was back in February, when media outlets reported that—contrary to express denials by the White House—former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador to the United States Sergei Kislyak. That information was probably known because Kislyak, as the agent of a foreign power, was subject to communications monitoring. The revelation lead to Flynn’s forced resignation.

At the time, both Adam Klein and Tim Edgar wrote about the troubling nature of the Flynn disclosures on Lawfare. Certainly both were right about the extraordinary nature of those disclosure and the difficult questions they raise. I cannot recall any other time in which the contents of FISA intercepts were disclosed to the media in this manner. The Flynn disclosure posed security risks to sources and methods by revealing that a precise communication channel had been compromised. And, as both Tim and Adam noted, it violated laws and guidelines designed to protect not only security but civil liberties as well.

It may be true in a functional system that leaks ease secrecy restrictions to mitigate issues of public trust. With the Trump administration, however, the liability is not external, with the leakers aiming to fortify the President and federal bureaucracy against public perceptions of illegitimacy. Instead, the bureaucracy mistrusts and fears President Trump himself.

One need not condone the leaks in that instance to view them at least in part as an adaptive response to a system failure. Rightly or wrongly, those who viewed Flynn as a national security threat may have justified the leaks as the only available response to the failure of the President to take action to mitigate the threat and the compounding failure of the White House lying to the public.

Whatever mitigating circumstances might have been offered in defense of the Flynn leaks, however, simply don’t exist here.

There are now two viable channels available to individuals who might be concerned about the Trump administration’s improperly interfering to prevent this information from being investigated or addressed. There are active congressional investigations, one of which is credible, and there is the Russia investigation headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

The existence of available alternative channels makes it especially difficult to justify these particular disclosure, which involve signals intercepts information regarding Americans. Information to, from, or about “US persons” is treated with extraordinary care by the statutes and guidelines governing signals intelligence. The nature of foreign intelligence surveillance requires different standards for collection than we are accustomed to in domestic law enforcement. Because US citizens information is sometimes acquired in contexts where the ordinary procedures safeguarding constitutional rights are unavailable, requiring that the information be handled with particular care is one way to mitigate the heightened risks. One of the most important protections is that information is not shared outside the proper channels or for purposes that are not consistent with foreign intelligence or law enforcement.

To publicly reveal this kind of US persons information for political purposes is an abuse. To the extent there were open debates over whether that is what happened to Michael Flynn, it seems clear that this newest information was leaked in order to increase political pressure on the President. That sets a dangerous precedent.

Disregarding the sanctity of information collected for foreign intelligence purposes, risks eroding the important civil liberties protections embodied by that sanctity. The strongest protection is rooted in broad principles about how this type of information should be used, not personal assessments about the greater good. Those who feared that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Flynn episode would invite a general loosening in the degree of care are being vindicated by both the newest leaks and the current climate generally. It is now open season on leaks of classified information. Despite Trump’s finger pointing, the worst offenders seem to be within his own White House. Yet, this latest story is clearly sourced to former intelligence officials, and it implicates a category of intelligence in which the breach of faith with the American people is especially grave. The response to leaks is always more leaks, as various actors seek to clarify or even mitigate harm. While ultimately the issue here is at the top, it is a mistake for current and former intelligence officials to play the White House’s game and respond by becoming careless with the protection of secrets we keep for very good reasons.

For individuals who have serious concerns regarding the conduct of the President and his inner circle, it is tempting to turn a blind eye to these disclosures. The President’s statements about leaks give rise to concerns that he is seeking to distract from questions about his own behavior and relationships, questions about which the American people are entitled to have answers. And there is genuine risk that the White House will seek to use investigations into leaks as a pretext for engaging in political retaliation against those they percieve as opponents. The result is a perception that acknowledging the gravity of these leaks legitimizes or plays into the White House’s false and dangerous narrative.

These are perilous times. We face questions regarding the intentions, conduct, and honor of our own President and his inner circle that bear—without exaggeration—on the future health of our Republic. That is why it is now more important than ever to insist that individuals entrusted with access to sensitive information be worthy of that trust.

[a fan]

If you & afan don't buy my contention that the intercepts leaked against Trump are unprecedented, pay attention to a couple unbiased experts in the field

Well sure, if you play the game of: these leaks came from a specific government program/department, yep, that's a new thing.

But that's like saying that the Syracuse Orangemen were the first team to win 100 games that were played on a Tuesday. In other words, it's a wholly irrelevant distinction.

I gave you the corollary before. Mark Felt. These FISA leaks are JV leaks compared with what Felt did.

Can you give me a list of the top 5 or so leaks from FISA?

[old salt]

If you & afan don't buy my contention that the intercepts leaked against Trump are unprecedented, pay attention to a couple unbiased experts in the field

Well sure, if you play the game of: these leaks came from a specific government program/department, yep, that's a new thing.

But that's like saying that the Syracuse Orangemen were the first team to win 100 games that were played on a Tuesday. In other words, it's a wholly irrelevant distinction.

I gave you the corollary before. Mark Felt. These FISA leaks are JV leaks compared with what Felt did.

Can you give me a list of the top 5 or so leaks from FISA?

Without further digging, I can only give you 2 for certain -- Flynn & the CNN report in my last post. They were just thru May '17.

I suspect the leaks of Trump's calls with foreign leaders during the transition were also based on FISA intercepts.

If I still had Greg Miller's book I could dig out more, or you could read his book & judge for yourself where his sources were.

[a fan]

I asked because I wanted to think about "what we wouldn't have known" without the leaks.

But----only two certain leaks? That's it? And even then, if you look at your CNN cite, they say " that information was probably known....". In other words, even CNN can't say for sure that's where the info. came from. A whole lot of fuss is made about these leaks...and no yet one can say for sure that they occurred? Wait: what?

So what if these two leaks came from outside the FISA program?

And the Flynn leak could easily have been from someone sympathetic to Trump, or someone inside Trump's Admin (appointed by Trump)...and didn't want Flynn to skate on his lie to Pence & Trump, right? So as I said before, we have no clue if this is Deep State, or Deep Love for Trump that's leading to these leaks. Leaks that we can't even confirm are FISA leaks.

That CNN piece is trying, as usual, to report opinion as fact. They don't know who did the leaking. So rambling forward in their piece, and simply assuming that the leaks were intended to damage Trump is foolish and wrong, and crap journalism. It took me all of ten seconds to come up with a scenario where the Flynn leak was designed to protect the POTUS.

[old salt]

I asked because I wanted to think about "what we wouldn't have known" without the leaks.

But----only two certain leaks? That's it? And even then, if you look at your CNN cite, they say " that information was probably known....". In other words, even CNN can't say for sure that's where the info. came from. A whole lot of fuss is made about these leaks...and no yet one can say for sure that they occurred? Wait: what?

So what if these two leaks came from outside the FISA program?

And the Flynn leak could easily have been from someone sympathetic to Trump, or someone inside Trump's Admin (appointed by Trump)...and didn't want Flynn to skate on his lie to Pence & Trump, right? So as I said before, we have no clue if this is Deep State, or Deep Love for Trump that's leading to these leaks. Leaks that we can't even confirm are FISA leaks.

That CNN piece is trying, as usual, to report opinion as fact. They don't know who did the leaking. So rambling forward in their piece, and simply assuming that the leaks were intended to damage Trump is foolish and wrong, and crap journalism. It took me all of ten seconds to come up with a scenario where the Flynn leak was designed to protect the POTUS.

As I said -- I only cited 2 because they are the easiest to readily document. If I still had Miller's book (& wanted to waste more time) I could cite other likely intercept leaks during the campaign, transition & ongoing into the Trump Admin. The fact that there are a relative small number demonstrates that they are a dangerous departure from the norm.

Regarding identifying the source, you can construct any number of theories to deny the obvious.
For the Flynn leak, take it from one of dis's favorite sources.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/02/15/d ... ynn-story/

... Ignatius set off the events with this article....

While Ignatius’ report is mentioned in a WaPo timeline of these events, he’s not bylined in either of the two big bombshells from WaPo on this, even though up to seven journalists are mentioned.

There are two obvious explanations. First, that Ignatius’ column, which serves as a mouthpiece for the IC (and especially CIA), is not generally treated in the same way other journalism at the WaPo is. And possibly, specifically in this case, if that reference were treated as reporting rather than speculation, it might lead Trump’s leak investigation back to the source that kicked off this leak fest. But by posing it as speculative questioning, it protects that original source.

You wonder why Trump insists on meeting with Putin alone ? There's been so many leaks, he can't trust the IC. Anything documented is subject to leak, ...or subpoena. Even if reported, anything other than naming & shaming Putin is distorted into proof that he is compromised.

[a fan]

As I said -- I only cited 2 because they are easiest to document. If I still had Miller's book (& wanted to waste more time) I could cite other likely intercept leaks during the campaign, transition & ongoing into the Trump Admin. The fact that there are a relative small number demonstrates that they are a dangerous departure from the norm.

That's fine, and I'm not disputing that leaks are happening, or that leaks are wrong.

All I'm saying is that your answer surprised me---all this time I thought these were confirmed FISA leaks. I'm not trying to waste your time. We have no clue if even one of these leaks is coming from the FISA system, right? So all this hair pulling over FISA could be for nothing. That's all I'm saying...not trying to run you in circles. Leaks of legally classified info. is bad. I agree with you fully on that point.

You wonder why Trump insists on meeting with Putin alone ? There's been so many leaks, he can't trust the IC. Anything documented is subject to leak, ...or subpoena. Even if reported, anything other than naming & shaming will be distorted into proof that he is compromised.

Right. Welcome to the White House. Don't like it? Don't take the job.

[Typical Lax Dad]

As I said -- I only cited 2 because they are easiest to document. If I still had Miller's book (& wanted to waste more time) I could cite other likely intercept leaks during the campaign, transition & ongoing into the Trump Admin. The fact that there are a relative small number demonstrates that they are a dangerous departure from the norm.

That's fine, and I'm not disputing that leaks are happening, or that leaks are wrong.

All I'm saying is that your answer surprised me---all this time I thought these were confirmed FISA leaks. I'm not trying to waste your time. We have no clue if even one of these leaks is coming from the FISA system, right? So all this hair pulling over FISA could be for nothing. That's all I'm saying...not trying to run you in circles. Leaks of legally classified info. is bad. I agree with you fully on that point.

You wonder why Trump insists on meeting with Putin alone ? There's been so many leaks, he can't trust the IC. Anything documented is subject to leak, ...or subpoena. Even if reported, anything other than naming & shaming will be distorted into proof that he is compromised.

Right. Welcome to the White House. Don't like it? Don't take the job.

That is why Jared was trying to set up a back channel line of communication that could not be monitored by the government of the United States of America during the campaign transition......

Jared Kushner gave a confusing explanation for his alleged 'back channel' plan with Russia

But Kushner acknowledged in the statement, which came ahead of a closed-door appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee, that he asked Russia's ambassador to the US in December whether the Trump transition team could use Russia's embassy to communicate privately with Moscow about Syria.

[old salt]

As I said -- I only cited 2 because they are easiest to document. If I still had Miller's book (& wanted to waste more time) I could cite other likely intercept leaks during the campaign, transition & ongoing into the Trump Admin. The fact that there are a relative small number demonstrates that they are a dangerous departure from the norm.

That's fine, and I'm not disputing that leaks are happening, or that leaks are wrong.

All I'm saying is that your answer surprised me---all this time I thought these were confirmed FISA leaks. I'm not trying to waste your time. We have no clue if even one of these leaks is coming from the FISA system, right? So all this hair pulling over FISA could be for nothing. That's all I'm saying...not trying to run you in circles. Leaks of legally classified info. is bad. I agree with you fully on that point.

You wonder why Trump insists on meeting with Putin alone ? There's been so many leaks, he can't trust the IC. Anything documented is subject to leak, ...or subpoena. Even if reported, anything other than naming & shaming will be distorted into proof that he is compromised.

Right. Welcome to the White House. Don't like it? Don't take the job.

No previous President has been so undermined by leaks from within the govt (aka Deep State), ...not even close.

Trump is a disrupt-er who threatens the status quo, with no previous govt experience & no experienced political or national security staff he could bring in. Thus the churn in his Admin & his reliance on unqualified family members or previous associates.

Combine that with his shortcomings as a leader, manager & human being, he has burned his way through the competent "adults" who were willing to sacrifice their reputations in service of the country.

The Deep State is winning. They are burning the village to save the village.

[a fan]

No previous President has been so undermined by leaks from within the govt (aka Deep State), ...not even close.

Richard Nixon would strongly disagree!

Appreciate the back and forth....

[old salt]

All I'm saying is that your answer surprised me---all this time I thought these were confirmed FISA leaks. We have no clue if even one of these leaks is coming from the FISA system, right? So all this hair pulling over FISA could be for nothing.

...& all Roger Stone is saying is that Assange receiving the hacked emails from the Russians is just an unproven allegation.
So all the resulting Russohobic hysteria could be misplaced, right ?

Mark Phelps didn't have access to NSA intercepts.

[ggait]

The massive number of leaks Trump endures is most easily explained as evidence/symptom of just how bad a leader and manager he is. The story of every tell all book is pretty much identical. Under-informed, over-confident, undisciplined, hires bad people, treats them like crap, inspires little loyalty. Basically a dumpster fire that no one good would want to work for.

But if you prefer to believe that the Trump Train is being "undermined" from reaching its potential due to a deep state conspiracy in the form of horrible leaks, whatev.

Seems to me like all of Trump's ample flaws would still be there even if Trump had no one leaking against him. He'd still suck as a president and a leader if there were zero leaks. So I don't see how he's being undermined. He'd be doing a really bad job regardless. And it is silly to think that you could stop the leaking. Because Trump himself is the root cause of why he gets so many leaks.

Seems to me like the deep state is doing as good a job as could be expected in dealing with the dumpster fire. But if you want to believe instead that Trump is not a dumpster fire but instead somehow valuable as a "disrupter", whatev. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is quite pernicious.

[a fan]

All I'm saying is that your answer surprised me---all this time I thought these were confirmed FISA leaks. We have no clue if even one of these leaks is coming from the FISA system, right? So all this hair pulling over FISA could be for nothing.

...& all Roger Stone is saying is that Assange receiving the hacked emails from the Russians is just an unproven allegation.
So all the resulting Russohobic hysteria could be misplaced, right ?

I don't expect you to remember every posters position, but I have maintained throughout that I don't think Trump colluded with Russians until proven otherwise. That said, I fully expect our intel services to protect our nation from the stupid Russians and their shenanigans. And if that means keeping an eye on our politicians, fantastic.

Mark Phelps didn't have access to NSA intercepts.

No, back then, Hoover just did whatever he wanted. Google FBI black bag jobs. Or FBI political surveillance. Hoover would've laughed at the idea of a FISA court----it would interfere with his power to do as he wishes. "Warrant? We don't don't need no stinking warrant!"

Intel gathering in those days essentially had no rules and would never have met modern standards. A FISA leak is tiddly winks compared to what the FBI did all the way through the 60's and 70's.

[old salt]

The massive number of leaks Trump endures is most easily explained as evidence/symptom of just how bad a leader and manager he is. The story of every tell all book is pretty much identical. Under-informed, over-confident, undisciplined, hires bad people, treats them like crap, inspires little loyalty. Basically a dumpster fire that no one good would want to work for.

But if you prefer to believe that the Trump Train is being "undermined" from reaching its potential due to a deep state conspiracy in the form of horrible leaks, whatev.

Seems to me like all of Trump's ample flaws would still be there even if Trump had no one leaking against him. He'd still suck as a president and a leader if there were zero leaks. So I don't see how he's being undermined. He'd be doing a really bad job regardless. And it is silly to think that you could stop the leaking. Because Trump himself is the root cause of why he gets so many leaks.

Seems to me like the deep state is doing as good a job as could be expected in dealing with the dumpster fire. But if you want to believe instead that Trump is not a dumpster fire but instead somehow valuable as a "disrupter", whatev. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is quite pernicious.

The Deep State is not a coherent, reasoning actor, appreciative of the damage they are doing & the potentially unintended consequences.

It's contains too many free lancers, pursuing their own agendas, willing to abuse the powers of their office, rather than remaining loyal to their oaths.
That is who is doing the leaking.

It's too easy to blame their malfeasance on Trump's failings & shortcomings. It's a cop out. He's the elected CinC. If you can't serve without undermining him, then get out.

I admire the IC leaders we just saw before Congress. They've apparently found a way to remain loyal to their CinC & their oath of office.

[youthathletics]

But if you prefer to believe that the Trump Train is being "undermined" from reaching its potential due to a deep state conspiracy in the form of horrible leaks, whatev.

Seems to me like the deep state is doing as good a job as could be expected in dealing with the dumpster fire. But if you want to believe instead that Trump is not a dumpster fire but instead somehow valuable as a "disrupter", whatev. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is quite pernicious.

I thought you did not believe in the deep state and what they can do?
If the Dunning-Kruger effect is what you believe Trump has, what does that say about America...phew, we are eff'd.

[seacoaster]

"They've apparently found a way to remain loyal to their CinC & their oath of office."

Agreed, and it is remarkable, given the pernicious lying their CinC perpetrates on their efforts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But if you prefer to believe that the Trump Train is being "undermined" from reaching its potential due to a deep state conspiracy in the form of horrible leaks, whatev.

Seems to me like the deep state is doing as good a job as could be expected in dealing with the dumpster fire. But if you want to believe instead that Trump is not a dumpster fire but instead somehow valuable as a "disrupter", whatev. Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is quite pernicious.

I thought you did not believe in the deep state and what they can do?
If the Dunning-Kruger effect is what you believe Trump has, what does that say about America...phew, we are eff'd.

As predicted, the results showed that those who scored low on political knowledge were also the ones who overestimated their level of knowledge. But that wasn’t all. When participants were given cues that made them engage in partisan thought, the Dunning-Kruger effect was made even stronger. This occurred with both Republicans and Democrats, but only in those who scored low on political knowledge to begin with.