CIA report - Russia intervened in the 2016 election

[Rogue 9]

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

I know damned well that a lot states didn't chose electors via popular vote, but I also know that the majority of states which failed to do so were either slave states ruled by oligarchies, newly created low-population states, or Massachusetts.
And that's ignoring the fundamental changes brought about by Andrew Jackson and his movement which are an example of exactly the sort of decision becoming tradition becoming unspoken law.
You know Jackson, right? The one man most responsible for us not being an oligarchy in law as well as fact? But tradition doesn't matter at all, we should throw it aside in favor of ever more cutthroat politics, after all, it worked so well for the Roman Republic, why not ours?

Cool your jets there, chief, I'm not advocating going back to that; I was just pointing out that the currently popular winner take all system used by 48 states was only in use by 2 in 1789. Also, Andrew Jackson was a demagogue and goddamned idiot; the only redeeming feature of his administration was the fact he made South Carolina sit down and shut up for another couple of decades.

Clinton is the only other possible candidate, any other would be completely open subversion of the will of the people and would require a tyranny to be instituted.

Okay, fine, we'll do it that way. Secretary Clinton isn't a criminal; you can't point to a single conviction or even credible prosecution. She's certainly far and away more competent to execute the duties of the Presidency than Mr. Trump, and her family's charitable foundation pales in comparison to the Trump Organization's business interests in north of fifty foreign countries. I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary as well, but that's no reason to be okay with Trump running roughshod over our government and civil institutions the way he's positioning himself and his Cabinet to do.

[aerius]

It can be anyone they choose who meets the legal requirements to serve. In practice it would be impossible to get 270 of them to agree to do it, but they have the legal authority to put up anybody, even someone who wasn't running.

Steven Seagal for President, make it happen!

[Flagg]

It can be anyone they choose who meets the legal requirements to serve. In practice it would be impossible to get 270 of them to agree to do it, but they have the legal authority to put up anybody, even someone who wasn't running.

Steven Seagal for President, make it happen!

Isn't he figuratively bobbing Putin's knob? No, it's Bruce Willis or die (hard).

[Flagg]

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

I know damned well that a lot states didn't chose electors via popular vote, but I also know that the majority of states which failed to do so were either slave states ruled by oligarchies, newly created low-population states, or Massachusetts.
And that's ignoring the fundamental changes brought about by Andrew Jackson and his movement which are an example of exactly the sort of decision becoming tradition becoming unspoken law.
You know Jackson, right? The one man most responsible for us not being an oligarchy in law as well as fact? But tradition doesn't matter at all, we should throw it aside in favor of ever more cutthroat politics, after all, it worked so well for the Roman Republic, why not ours?

Cool your jets there, chief, I'm not advocating going back to that; I was just pointing out that the currently popular winner take all system used by 48 states was only in use by 2 in 1789. Also, Andrew Jackson was a demagogue and goddamned idiot; the only redeeming feature of his administration was the fact he made South Carolina sit down and shut up for another couple of decades.

Jackson ignored a SCOTUS ruling protecting natives and forced them on a goddamned death March known as "the trail of tears". The only redeeming thing about that genocidal maniac is that he eventually died.

[mr friendly guy]

It can be anyone they choose who meets the legal requirements to serve. In practice it would be impossible to get 270 of them to agree to do it, but they have the legal authority to put up anybody, even someone who wasn't running.

Steven Seagal for President, make it happen!

But Seagal is Putin's puppet. He doesn't have business interests in Russia, he has Russian citizenship.

[The Romulan Republic]

Want to back up that assertion? Or is "reverence for the truth" a euphemism for "they agree with my biases"?

When has Wikileaks knowingly lied?

I do know that the alternative theory needs more than a Wikileaks operative (i.e. one of the guilty parties in aiding Trump) cited by the Daily fucking Mail.
I an the biased one? Guilty of revealing the truth. BWAHAHA
Ignorance is Strength, it seems. How unseemly that they aired the dirty laundry of POTUS job candidate. How very passe, revealing the foul acts of a politician whose from my tribe!

Also, Russia has been known to interfere in other countries' elections before. As has America. The only "shocking" thing about these allegations is that they would have the audacity to do it to America. And thus far, it hasn't backfired on Russia. Barring a miraculous stand by the Electoral College, Trump has won, and they have their business partner/enabler/useful idiot in the White House.

Yeah, it definitely won't backfire if the accusation is proven true, that definitely won't turn the US population completely against Russia and plunge us into a new cold war for the foreseeable future.

Aw, you think you're being clever.

I don't stand for corporatism, but for democracy.

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

Regarding Brexit- its not really on topic for this thread, but if the courts ruled that the decision to leave the EU was made improperly/not in accordance with the law, then that may be an argument to change the law to be more democratic and allow such issues to be decided by referendum, but in the meantime, the vote should not be legally binding in my opinion. I'm pro-democracy, but I'm also pro-rule of law, except in extreme cases. Changing the rules mid-stream not being terribly conducive to a fair vote.

Regarding the Electoral College and Trump, I dispute your claim that my position (that the Electors should reject Trump) is against democratic results. I dispute that Trump's victory is democratic. The EC is not democratic, by its nature and by design, and it has now twice in two decades overturned the results of the popular vote. Trump unambiguously lost the popular vote, in addition to the fact that his victory may have been partly due to illegal interference by a foreign government.

Now, you'll probably respond that the popular vote isn't what matters in US elections- the EC is. But the EC is nonetheless inherently undemocratic, and would arguably be being more democratic if it voted against Trump, and in line with the popular vote.

And Constitutionally, the Electors are permitted to vote for someone other than Trump. It would be unprecedented, but not unConstitutional (at worst, in violation of some state laws). Arguably, under the existing system, they have a responsibility to exercise their own judgement, even though they usually don't.

Its a shitty as hell system, and I wish it was ditched in favour of a straight nationwide popular vote (you know, democracy), but to the best of my knowledge, the EC does have the right to pick someone other than Trump under the existing rules, and if they picked Clinton, they would in fact be acting in accord with the will of the people (again, democracy).

Their is no inconsistency here, and I expect you to retract the claim that I oppose the democratic result in the US election in favour of oligarchic rule.

Edits: The EC is the epitome of oligarchy- a few hundred people getting to pick the President. If we had full, true democracy, the popular vote would be what mattered. Arguably, voting in accordance with the popular vote is the least undemocratic option the EC could take.

Granted, it could be seen as changing the rules midstream, even if it isn't technically. Electors doing such a thing would be unprecedented, and it may not be good to set such a precedent in the long run. I'll allow that its a complex issue. But I do not believe that you can honestly characterize my position as simply favouring oligarchy over democracy.

On Wikileaks, since I missed it before- I don't have proof of them deliberately lying off-hand, but that doesn't preclude them being biased (which they are), or selective.

[K. A. Pital]

On Wikileaks, since I missed it before- I don't have proof of them deliberately lying off-hand, but that doesn't preclude them being biased (which they are), or selective.

How are they biased if they only leak information that's accessible to them? They can't have 100% of the world's dirty laundry of every government and political party out there, this is infeasible. They leak information that they get. How and what they get is a different matter, of course, but they do have a duty to report.

[Flagg]

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Terralthra]

Someone mentioned the FBI...?

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.“The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI,” Brennan’s message read.

Trump has consistently dismissed the intelligence community’s findings about Russian hacking.

The CIA and FBI declined to comment.

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill about two weeks ago in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Specifically, CIA briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was one of Russia’s goals, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

CIA and FBI officials do not think Russia had a “single purpose” by intervening during the presidential campaign. In addition to helping Trump, intelligence officials have told lawmakers that Moscow’s other goal included undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral system.

A separate House intelligence briefing by a senior FBI counterintelligence official last week left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers with the impression that the bureau wasn’t on the same page as the CIA, according to officials present.

“The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said of the FBI and CIA positions.

In his message to the CIA’s workforce, Brennan said the administration has provided detailed briefings to lawmakers and their aides since the summer.

“In recent days, I have had several conversations with members of Congress, providing an update on the status of the review as well as the considerations that need to be taken into account as we proceed,” Brennan wrote. “Many – but unfortunately not all – members understand and appreciate the importance and the gravity of the issue, and they are very supportive of the process that is underway.”

Well, there goes the "the FBI disagrees with the CIA" thing. Oh well.

[Crazedwraith]

Bet Comey love this. "Well it was the Russians fault you know. Not mine."

[Flagg]

Bet Comey love this. "Well it was the Russians fault you know. Not mine."

He should hope like hell that he's not in the government should Chelsea run and win.

[aerius]

Well, I guess it's time to send Colin Powell to the UN with the proof so that we can invade Russia.

[Simon_Jester]

Aerius, I've got a yes or no question for you:

We know now (and some of us knew all along) that Bush made up the claims about Iraqi WMD, encouraged the CIA to find sources supporting the false claims, and then spread them to the world.

So, yes or no:

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

If the answer is 'yes,' I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you think so.

If the answer is 'no,' I would appreciate it if you would stop making passive-aggressive zero-content remarks about how the whole thing is "JUST LIKE THE IRAQI WMD LOL!"

Bet Comey love this. "Well it was the Russians fault you know. Not mine."

The flip side of this is that Comey can't be sanely accused of being biased in favor of both sides simultaneously.

If he released the "just saying..." report regarding the Clinton emails a few days before the election because of pro-Trump bias or desire to cost Clinton the election, it would make no sense for him to step up and (fairly quickly) support these accusations against Trump.

So either he's neutral (and/or takes a trollish delight in tossing political bombs at anyone who runs for president regardless of their party affiliation)...

Or he's pro-one-side, but has an incredible, ludicrous willingness to damage his own side.

[mr friendly guy]

Aerius, I've got a yes or no question for you:

We know now (and some of us knew all along) that Bush made up the claims about Iraqi WMD, encouraged the CIA to find sources supporting the false claims, and then spread them to the world.

So, yes or no:

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

If the answer is 'yes,' I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you think so.

If the answer is 'no,' I would appreciate it if you would stop making passive-aggressive zero-content remarks about how the whole thing is "JUST LIKE THE IRAQI WMD LOL!"

Your argument seems to boil down to, the CIA only lies if the President tells them to lie. Am I misinterpreting this? If so please correct me.

[Tsyroc]

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

As it currently stands why would it prevent Trump from taking the White House?

Currently, it appears that all that the Russian hackers did was reveal the truth about Hillary and the DNC. Something that the press should have done if we actually had any decent press in this country anymore.

Now, if it could be proven that Trump knew what they were up to ahead of time and was involved or signed off on it, an argument could be made that he was involved in violating the law (conspiring to hack?) and that would put him in very similar territory to what Nixon resigned over, except worse because he would have conspired with a foreign government to do it. Considering what he actually said on camera, encouraging Russia to hack emails, he might have provided enough of a connection to get him in trouble but I'm not sure it is enough to convince the majority of the country, or at least enough Republicans in congress that they would go along with blocking his assuming the presidency. I wonder if they'd let him become president and then immediately move to impeach him instead?

[Flagg]

Well, I guess it's time to send Colin Powell to the UN with the proof so that we can invade Russia.

Anyone who wants to start a war over this is dumber than our President elect, and that's saying quite a bit. Just because they may have done the worst case and fucked with machines, flipping them for Donnie Douchebag, and you could consider it a Casis Beli, doesn't mean you poke the bear and soak the northern hemisphere in nuclear fire.

That said, I'm not prepared to call this a deliberate attempt to frame Russia as a CYA move by the Democrats. There's plenty of weird shit going down regarding Russian hacking.

So I'm kind of in the "show me the money" camp where I believe it could be true, there's enough "there" there, but I need actually solid evidence. And I mean real solid evidence, not pictures of trailers that were artillery balloons.

[Flagg]

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

As it currently stands why would it prevent Trump from taking the White House?

Currently, it appears that all that the Russian hackers did was reveal the truth about Hillary and the DNC. Something that the press should have done if we actually had any decent press in this country anymore.

Now, if it could be proven that Trump knew what they were up to ahead of time and was involved or signed off on it, an argument could be made that he was involved in violating the law (conspiring to hack?) and that would put him in very similar territory to what Nixon resigned over, except worse because he would have conspired with a foreign government to do it. Considering what he actually said on camera, encouraging Russia to hack emails, he might have provided enough of a connection to get him in trouble but I'm not sure it is enough to convince the majority of the country, or at least enough Republicans in congress that they would go along with blocking his assuming the presidency. I wonder if they'd let him become president and then immediately move to impeach him instead?

Yeah, why didn't they hammer Trump about his tax evasion, case after case concerning sexual assault? Frankly Clinton is a 2 bit pickpocket and Trump is a serial killer if you want to use metaphors.

[Flagg]

Aerius, I've got a yes or no question for you:

We know now (and some of us knew all along) that Bush made up the claims about Iraqi WMD, encouraged the CIA to find sources supporting the false claims, and then spread them to the world.

So, yes or no:

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

If the answer is 'yes,' I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why you think so.

If the answer is 'no,' I would appreciate it if you would stop making passive-aggressive zero-content remarks about how the whole thing is "JUST LIKE THE IRAQI WMD LOL!"

Your argument seems to boil down to, the CIA only lies if the President tells them to lie. Am I misinterpreting this? If so please correct me.

No, his argument boils down to "we don't have all the facts, let's not do a rush to judgement for or against what we do know and what may just believe based on who we do or don't support

[aerius]

If the answer is 'no,' I would appreciate it if you would stop making passive-aggressive zero-content remarks about how the whole thing is "JUST LIKE THE IRAQI WMD LOL!"

I'll stop making snarky posts when the US intelligence agencies put up their evidence for public examination. The claims right now are that not only did the Russians hack the systems and influence the election, but that Putin was personally involved and may have collaborated with Trump to help him out. These are pretty extraordinary and very serious allegations, and if they're going to be acted upon in any way the public needs to see the evidence. Your President, in his speech today, told Russia to cut out the hacking or there will be consequences. Don't you think that the people need to see the evidence before he commits the nation to doing shit that will have consequences? Especially when it involves a superpower that has fucking nukes?

[Simon_Jester]

Do you think that the Obama administration has ordered all three intelligence agencies to falsely accuse Trump of having Russian support, in an attempt to prevent Trump from taking the White House?

As it currently stands why would it prevent Trump from taking the White House?

Currently, it appears that all that the Russian hackers did was reveal the truth about Hillary and the DNC. Something that the press should have done if we actually had any decent press in this country anymore.

Now, if it could be proven that Trump knew what they were up to ahead of time and was involved or signed off on it, an argument could be made that he was involved in violating the law (conspiring to hack?) and that would put him in very similar territory to what Nixon resigned over, except worse because he would have conspired with a foreign government to do it. Considering what he actually said on camera, encouraging Russia to hack emails, he might have provided enough of a connection to get him in trouble but I'm not sure it is enough to convince the majority of the country, or at least enough Republicans in congress that they would go along with blocking his assuming the presidency. I wonder if they'd let him become president and then immediately move to impeach him instead?

Given the narrowness of Trump's victory (swinging a few key states by narrow margins), there are very serious ethical issues with confirming him as president if he's the beneficiary of a foreign power.

Arguing that the press "should have" revealed the truth about Clinton is a moot point unless you're also arguing that the press "should have" revealed (that is to say, emphasized) a wide variety of truths about Trump. Such as the extremely long list of sexual harassment complaints, the history of tax evasion, the fraudulent 'Trump University.' The fact that these things weren't making the news regularly throughout the month of October indicates that the media wasn't doing a very good job of exposing the vices of either side.

I'll be honest with you, assuming the CIA actually has the evidence to back up its claims, I'd be more comfortable with someone like the Speaker of the House being chosen (even though I think Paul Ryan would be an absolutely terrible president). Mike Pence would be a sane-ish compromise choice, except that he stood to personally benefit from the Russian hacking just like Trump, and it's hard to rule out him being complicit.

Your argument seems to boil down to, the CIA only lies if the President tells them to lie. Am I misinterpreting this? If so please correct me.

Very well.

My argument is, if the CIA lies on purpose, someone must have made the decision to lie. Now, hypothetically, it could be the president or other people at the very top. It could be CIA leadership, in the middle. It could be some random junior fuckwit in the CIA, on the bottom.

the CIA only lies if one of the following conditions is met:

1) Someone who outranks the CIA leadership (e.g. the president, or maybe one of a few Cabinet-level officials) tells them to lie.
2) The senior leadership of the CIA decides to lie without being told to.
3) Someone junior in the CIA "anonymously leaks" the lie to the press for their own purposes, against the wishes of both the senior leadership and the top political officials, OR...
4) The CIA is genuinely misled by bad evidence (whether this technically counts as lying or not doesn't matter for our purposes, it's still the CIA saying shit that isn't true).

Now, if the FBI and DNI leaders back the CIA's claim, that tends to suggest that (2) and (3) are improbable.

In case (3), then not even the leaders of the CIA would have gone along with it, let alone the leaders of the FBI and the DNI.

In case (2), which would amount to a rogue CIA operation to discredit Trump, then the leaders of the FBI and DNI would (again) not have gone along with the same story.

So either there are orders to lie coming from the top, from people with the authority to issue similar orders to all the agencies...

Or all three organizations are, at worst, the victims of misleading but plausible evidence that all three agencies have been tricked by.
________________________________

(1) and (2) are the ONLY cases enough like "Iraqi WMD lol" to justify constant snarky comparisons to Iraqi WMD, a la Aerius.

(3) would not justify it because it wouldn't be the result of systematic lying by the CIA, it would be one liar somewhere in the organization, and any organization can have one liar. Plus, (3) is pretty obviously not true anyway.

(4), with the CIA just being wrong, would not be enough. Because with Iraqi WMD the problem wasn't just that the CIA was wrong, it's that they were lying. If the CIA doesn't know they're wrong about this one, then it's not comparable to the Iraqi WMD.

So again, the explanations that justify Aerius's words are (1) and (2). (3) and (4) would not cut it.

(2) is now highly unlikely. Which leaves (1).
________________________________

So basically... Either Aerius actually believes this whole thing is an attempt by Obama to discredit Trump, or he's just engaged in passive-aggressive bullshit...

(EDIT)

If the answer is 'no,' I would appreciate it if you would stop making passive-aggressive zero-content remarks about how the whole thing is "JUST LIKE THE IRAQI WMD LOL!"

I'll stop making snarky posts when the US intelligence agencies put up their evidence for public examination. The claims right now are that not only did the Russians hack the systems and influence the election, but that Putin was personally involved and may have collaborated with Trump to help him out. These are pretty extraordinary and very serious allegations, and if they're going to be acted upon in any way the public needs to see the evidence. Your President, in his speech today, told Russia to cut out the hacking or there will be consequences. Don't you think that the people need to see the evidence before he commits the nation to doing shit that will have consequences? Especially when it involves a superpower that has fucking nukes?

Now see, this is cutting the passive-aggressive bullshit. It's a substantiative criticism. I have respect for this position.

I, too, want to see this evidence. However, the joint declarations by multiple leaders of multiple organizations makes me less likely to think it is anything other than real evidence. Evidence that is credible and serious and consistent with the gravity of the accusations being made against the Russians.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I concur with Simon. The Bush Junta's manipulation of "intelligence agencies" was pretty blatant and out there for all to see. That said, are the accusers within these agencies and are effectively public servants who have worked for presidents of both parties, or just partisan appointments? Because if we're talking career intelligence analysts, then that gives the allegations far more credibility.

But as aeris has said (essentially), these are pretty extraordinary claims, so unless it's putting active agent's lives on the line, we need to see some extraordinary evidence or it's just farting in the wind.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I guess it's time to send Colin Powell to the UN with the proof so that we can invade Russia.

No one's going to invade Russia. Leaving aside weather the US even has the logistical capability to do so, Obama doesn't want a nuclear exchange, and leaving fear-mongering aside, I don't think Hillary does either.

What this is about is weather Russia interfered in a US election- surely a legitimate concern for anyone who cares about the integrity of the democratic process, when multiple agencies have come to the same conclusion.

Now, is it possible that Obama is fabricating all of this for political reasons? Possibly, in theory. But does it really seem likely to you that Obama-cautious, compromising Obama-would engineer a complex fraud potentially implicating major opposition politicians including the President-elect, and posing the risk of both confrontation with Russia and domestic political unrest, for partisan reasons? That seems... staggeringly out of character for him.

On the other hand, interference in another nation's elections to achieve the election of a pro-Russia Right-wing businessman/strong man is rather in keeping with Vladimir Putin's track record and agenda, even if directing such brazen interference at an American election is unprecedented.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah, I concur with Simon. The Bush Junta's manipulation of "intelligence agencies" was pretty blatant and out there for all to see. That said, are the accusers within these agencies and are effectively public servants who have worked for presidents of both parties, or just partisan appointments? Because if we're talking career intelligence analysts, then that gives the allegations far more credibility.

But as aeris has said (essentially), these are pretty extraordinary claims, so unless it's putting active agent's lives on the line, we need to see some extraordinary evidence or it's just farting in the wind.

Well, it certainly sounds as though Congress is being briefed now. It hardly surprises me if Congress gets briefings on this before the general public. Personally, I would assume that if Congressmen are being briefed, the evidence being cited in the briefings is not just farting in the wind.

It would have to either be a deliberate fabrication (a fabrication which is being heard by Republicans who would probably not hesitate to pursue criminal charges of some kind if this all turns out to be a lie)... Or it has to be something the CIA thinks is true, with enough confidence that they're willing to risk the careers of everyone even vaguely associated with this information.

[mr friendly guy]

The thing is, one doesn't need to fabricate per se. One just needs to see what they want to see and their own biases lead to them to the conclusion they want. On some level they realise that the evidence they gather might not cut it to other people, but they still will hold onto their conclusion. Kind of like a detective who "knows" a suspect is the culprit but cannot prove it in a court of law. Remember the link I posted earlier when Nancy Pelosi just "knows" Russia did it, and outright said she didn't even get that information from intelligence agencies. Even if intelligence agency workers had similar mindset but only half as strong, I wouldn't be surprise if they couldn't gather sufficient evidence.

[Flagg]

The thing is, one doesn't need to fabricate per se. One just needs to see what they want to see and their own biases lead to them to the conclusion they want. On some level they realise that the evidence they gather might not cut it to other people, but they still will hold onto their conclusion. Kind of like a detective who "knows" a suspect is the culprit but cannot prove it in a court of law. Remember the link I posted earlier when Nancy Pelosi just "knows" Russia did it, and outright said she didn't even get that information from intelligence agencies. Even if intelligence agency workers had similar mindset but only half as strong, I wouldn't be surprise if they couldn't gather sufficient evidence.

Yeah, confirmation bias is always a concern which is why I made the distinction between career CIA agents and analysts, and political appointees. A career person is far more likely to see what evidence exists and how it connects to other evidence in a more objective fashion than an Obama appointee, even if both are being sincere when looking at the same evidence.

And as much as I hate Trump and never want to see him groping every female over the age of 7 that he sees visiting the White House, I'm kind of an anti-Mulder: I Don't Want to Believe.