Trump tells CIA they are wrong and US presidential procedures

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chillsjag, Dec 11, 2016.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

    • Informative Informative x 2
  1. I think that should he actually get inducted into the white house, he may get a swift talking to from those in command
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. It would be difficult for him to publicly do anything else. If he announced that the Kremlin had been a great help in winning him the presidency what would the next step then have to be? A re-election in which he'd be very damaged goods?

    I'm surprised that the CIA are making their findings public when the result is potentially so incendiary. Why would they do that?
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Because they don't want The White Aged Trump to be president either?
     
    • Like Like x 9
    • Funny Funny x 3
  4. I'd be very surprised if he got all the way to his inauguration without at least one assassination attempt
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. It's not quite as unpalatable for the CIA to be influencing elections as it is for the Kremlin to be doing it, but its on the scale.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 5
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  6. There seems to be a belief amongst the chattering classes that when the riff-raff don't do what they're told to by the aforementioned class, its because they've been got at.

    I believe Sir David Attenborough opined (after the result) that the British public were too stupid to understand the implications of the Brexit referendum and should have left it to parliament.

    I'd love to know if he voted.
     
    • Like Like x 12
  7. He's certainly entertaining is the Donald.

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  8. But if it's true...?
     
  9. They haven't, the claims about what is in the report came from an 'anonymous source'.

    I think the BBC may have missed the point completely here. It wasn't the fact the emails were hacked that changed people's view of Hillary and had an impact on how people voted. It was what Hillary and her team had written in them that people didn't like.
     
    • Like Like x 20
  10. He was articulating the very valid point that (as a Parliamentary democracy) we elect bright people to make these decisions on our behalf. He missed the point that they are politicians.
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. To be fair to the Donald, is there a difference between the two? They both keep poking and annoying their Yiddish neighbour, but then they and hard core left wingers whinge and moan when the Red Sea pedestrians get all rowdy and start slapping Hamas and hezbolla around.

    If I was POTUS elect, I'd tar them both with the same brush. Regardless of which bit of land they operate out of.........
     
    • Like Like x 14
  12. Hmmm so somebody apparently, allegedly, hacks the Democratic Party,
    And makes public, information that the Democratic Party wants to keep secret as it does their standing no good.
    Now let's remind ourselves, no-one is saying that what was revealed is untrue, fabricated, no-one claims the emails are forgeries.
     
    • Like Like x 10
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Except that we don't.

    Anything that alters how we are governed cannot, according to international law, be decided by governments nor nations, as the right to self-determination flows to 'peoples'.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anything the FBI can do, the CIA can do better.
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Funny Funny x 3