Intel Chiefs Contradict Trump on Global Threats

[UT alum]

CIA - Iran is in compliance with nuclear deal signed during Obama administration.

FBI - Russia still using social media platforms as a vehicle for weaponizing disinformation and spreading foreign influence in the United States.

NSA - ISIS still commands thousands of soldiers in Syria and Iraq

NSA - currently assesses that North Korea will continue to retain its WMD capabilities and it is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear capabilities

I listened to the head of each agency listed above make those statements.

Two hours of testimony and no mention of rationale for a wall, and 0 questions about need for wall in 2 hours of testimony.

Any thoughts?

[Englebert]

46 minutes ago, UT alum said:

CIA - Iran is in compliance with nuclear deal signed during Obama administration.

FBI - Russia still using social media platforms as a vehicle for weaponizing disinformation and spreading foreign influence in the United States.

NSA - ISIS still commands thousands of soldiers in Syria and Iraq

NSA - currently assesses that North Korea will continue to retain its WMD capabilities and it is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear capabilities

I listened to the head of each agency listed above make those statements.

Two hours of testimony and no mention of rationale for a wall, and 0 questions about need for wall in 2 hours of testimony.

Any thoughts?

I did not see the testimony, nor have I heard anything that was said, so I can only ask questions.

In the two hours of testimony, did the CIA reiterate that the Iran nuclear deal gives Iran a path to legal ownership of nuclear weapons? Did they mention anything about the deal, like having to give Iran 30 days before inspections? Did they mention how bad of a deal it is for Israel, the U.S., and the rest of the world?

Did the FBI comment on how much money Russia was spending for spreading foreign influence in the United States? Is Russia spending more than the couple of thousand dollars like last election? Are they close to spending the millions of dollars that the Hillary campaign spent disseminating false information about a political rival? Did they talk about how much money the Obama administration spent trying to influence foreign elections?

Does the obvious even need mentioning? Does rationale for the wall even need to be debated?

[stevenash]

Hmmmm Seems like the FBI might have a credibility problem?

[PhatMack19]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Hmmmm Seems like the FBI might have a credibility problem?

I think you forgot about Clapper & Brennan’s credibility issues 

[UT alum]

7 hours ago, stevenash said:

Hmmmm Seems like the FBI might have a credibility problem?

Wray is Trump’s appointee. So are Haspel and Coats.

[UT alum]

6 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

I think you forgot about Clapper & Brennan’s credibility issues 

Clapper and Brennan had no input into these reports. 

[PhatMack19]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Clapper and Brennan had no input into these reports. 

The Deep State is deep.  There are way more people involved than what is out now.  You had a high level FBI agent and his side piece actively trying to overthrow the govt.  How many more of those are out there that we don’t know about?

[UT alum]

2 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

The Deep State is deep.  There are way more people involved than what is out now.  You had a high level FBI agent and his side piece actively trying to overthrow the govt.  How many more of those are out there that we don’t know about?

Man, you sound like a 60’s hippie.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Man, you sound like a 60’s hippie.

Are you saying there is no deep state, UT Alum?

[UT alum]

12 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Are you saying there is no deep state, UT Alum?

In Russia.

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

Man, you sound like a 60’s hippie.

Really?  Are you that ignorant of the facts of who was trying to undermine Trump.

You should listen to Rush instead of wherever you're getting your news.

[Tigers2010]

13 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Really?  Are you that ignorant of the facts of who was trying to undermine Trump.

You should listen to Rush instead of wherever you're getting your news.

Rachel Maddow

[LumRaiderFan]

13 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

Rachel Maddow

lol...or the view.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, Tigers2010 said:

Rachel Maddow

I never watch her. She's an entertainer, too.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Really?  Are you that ignorant of the facts of who was trying to undermine Trump.

You should listen to Rush instead of wherever you're getting your news.

Rush doesn't give facts, he spins facts.

[LumRaiderFan]

14 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Rush doesn't give facts, he spins facts.

I'll ask one more time, show me the proof of that.

[UT alum]

30 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I'll ask one more time, show me the proof of that.

It’s useless if you can’t tell the difference between news and entertainment.

[LumRaiderFan]

25 minutes ago, UT alum said:

It’s useless if you can’t tell the difference between news and entertainment.

In other words, you can't provide proof.

It's sad that libs can't realize that someone can talk about current events very accurately AND still be entertaining. 

I guess I wouldn't care to listen to someone that constantly blew holes in my ideology either.

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It's sad that libs can't realize that someone can talk about current events very accurately AND still be entertaining. 

I guess I wouldn't care to listen to someone that constantly blew holes in my ideology either.

You mean talk about current events in a manner that supports your view of reality. The guy is a pox on civil discourse. 

[LumRaiderFan]

27 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You mean talk about current events in a manner that supports your view of reality. The guy is a pox on civil discourse. 

Reality only has one view.

Funny, the more you talk about him the worse he gets ...lol.

[stevenash]

28 minutes ago, UT alum said:

You mean talk about current events in a manner that supports your view of reality. The guy is a pox on civil discourse. 

Please provide an example of  someone that you perceive to be a provider of civil discourse and authentic news without a political predilection.

[UT alum]

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Reality only has one view.

Perception is 9/10 of reality. It has many views.

[stevenash]

4 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Perception is 9/10 of reality. It has many views.

If you pass my healthcare plan, the average family will realize a $2500 per year premium reduction.  What was the  perception and what was the reallity?

[UT alum]

5 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Please provide an example of  someone that you perceive to be a provider of civil discourse and authentic news without a political predilection.

Professional journalists. Not opinionists, on either end of the spectrum.

The only one I watch is Chuck Todd. He interviews people from all sides. I take his panelists with a grain of salt.

Eugene Robinson is a man whose opinions I respect. Sometimes even George Will.

[UT alum]

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

If you pass my healthcare plan, the average family will realize a $2500 per year premium reduction.  What was the  perception and what was the reallity?

There are no facts there to perceive.

Speaking of healthcare, look here:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up