Jacoby wrote:
There are some rather obvious factions within the 'intelligence community' that are closely connected to previous presidents and at this point I think they lack credibility as a whole because of the extent the bureaucracy has been politicized by previous administrations. What else can you call these leakers but saboteurs? Your hatred of Trump shouldn't ally you against it's very democracy, these people are real criminals and thugs that are fighting to maintain control their swamp. Remember they lied about Iraq, know that they lied about spying on millions and millions of Americans including congressman, senators, Supreme Court Justices, and even presidential candidates apparently. These people are traitors to this country and now they're hurting national security as well in addition to their campaign of sedition.
The intelligence agency leakers are the least of Donald's concerns, he has his own political appointments leaking on him, and allegedly a few Eastern European prostitutes as well, lol. That's what happens to leaders that demand absolute loyalty and show none of their own. Example: Sean Spicer getting snubbed at the Vatican yesterday, just wait until Spicey's fired he's gonna have a story to tell, guaranteed, because that's what happens when you treat people like dirt. Donald expects full loyalty to himself, not the Constitution even though that's what every office pledge is to, and yet he'll throw people under the bus on a whim, that's going to create leaks. That's already proven by the magnitude of leaks coming from his own political appointments which at this point are far more than anything the intelligence agencies have leaked. It's a poor leadership style he exhibits, poor leaders get leaked on, sorry, choose a better leader next time.
Second, review the Iraq war evidence:
Quote:
In early October 2002, President Bush was given a one-page summary report of a National Intelligence Estimate on the issue of whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon (the NIE was declassified on July 18, 2003 and presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[16]). The report stated that the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," while other intelligence agencies, including some at the CIA, believed that the tubes were intended for nuclear enrichment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_alu ... nce_AgencyThe CIA was never completely sold that the tubes were going to be used for uranium enrichment. Bush ran with a 50/50 conclusion from the agency because he had a hard-on for Saddam. Intelligence agencies collect and analyze information, it's up to the president to make decisions on that evidence. Bush made the wrong decision, not surprising seeing as how there wasn't even close to consensus on the issue. It was a risky decision based on a mixed opinion by the intelligence agencies. Lesson of the story: don't make brash decisions based on inconclusive evidence.
Lastly, the CIA is tasked with gathering intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands, the FBI is tasked with gathering intelligence on foreign targets operating in the US. If you're talking to a foreign target you're going to get recorded. What are they supposed to do? "Oh the Russian spy Viktor Borshev we're bugging is talking to Bob Bobber in Ohio, we better turn off the bug to give him some privacy." No, that's just f*****g stupid.