4 ms·

Are you positing that Trump or members of his administration have somehow released these CIA resources? Or just that WikiLeaks is bringing attention to these r

Are you positing that Trump or members of his administration have somehow released these CIA resources? Or just that WikiLeaks is bringing attention to these resources and their current "libre" status in the wild?

badloginagain 10y ago
Im stating the possibility that the Executive Branch made available the means to doxx the CIA. The timing, the target, and the vector of attack all line up very nicely.
- jdironman 10y ago
  That sounds like such a CIA move. Always attacking indirectly.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- coldtea 10y ago
  We had such leaks all the time during Obama's presidency (what with Snowden et al). So, no reason at all to assume anything particular changed, except that people want to assume something -- because Trump.
  - Stanish 10y ago
    It is interesting that the dumps were primarily from the NSA. I don't know the issue well enough to state whether the antipathy existed between the CIA and NSA enough for them to make this kind of move under the nose of Obama, but it certainly could have helped move some NSA funds to the CIA.
- mpg33 10y ago
  So Trump is simultaneously a complete incompetent blowhard and pulling off these mastermind plans??
  - badloginagain 10y ago
    I think it's likely that Trump will make difficult demands of his staff, and they find a way to make it happen. The President doesn't necessary get involved with the details of formulating the strategy to accomplish the demand. What's more important is the President thinks about risk factors, fallout, long-term implications of the strategy their staff proposes. The 'incompetent' comes from an apparent disregard of thinking about the consequences of his actions. The 'blowhard' is self-documented.
    - intended 10y ago
      just because the demands are difficult, doesnt mean that the staff will work to make it happen. The staff can let it fail and place the blame on a rival The staff can fail, and distract the president The staff can fail, and blame a convenient political opponent. The staff can succeed, in a few things, but not the whole remit. They can then spin it as a success The task could be very complicated and would require multiple steps to achieve it. But finally, the reason this fails as an argument - is that gutting the security apparatus of the state when you control it, is absurd. The assumption for this to be non-absurd, is that the CIA is working against the government, and the constitution. If that was the case, then following the constitution and declassifying their arsenal was not necessary in the least. Essentially, the theory can be disproved by contradiction/occams razor.
      - learc83 10y ago
        >Essentially, the theory can be disproved by contradiction/occams razor. You haven't disproved anything. You've stated an opposing viewpoint. I haven't seen any evidence that leads me to believe that someone in the administration leaked this to harm the CIA, but nothing you said came close to proving that that's not what happened. >the reason this fails as an argument - is that gutting the security apparatus of the state when you control it, is absurd Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the hypothetical administration leakers will come to the same cost benefit conclusion you did. I can think of limitless situations in which covertly injuring the CIA may appear to be worth it to people within the administration. The administration doesn't appear to trust the CIA and it's entirely possible they view them as an enemy to be dealt with rather than an asset to be controlled. Again I don't think this is the likely explanation, but it's not so unlikely that you can just throw out "occams razor I'll accept your concession now."

badloginagain 10y ago

Im stating the possibility that the Executive Branch made available the means to doxx the CIA. The timing, the target, and the vector of attack all line up very nicely.

jdironman 10y ago
That sounds like such a CIA move. Always attacking indirectly.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
We had such leaks all the time during Obama's presidency (what with Snowden et al). So, no reason at all to assume anything particular changed, except that people want to assume something -- because Trump.
- Stanish 10y ago
  It is interesting that the dumps were primarily from the NSA. I don't know the issue well enough to state whether the antipathy existed between the CIA and NSA enough for them to make this kind of move under the nose of Obama, but it certainly could have helped move some NSA funds to the CIA.
mpg33 10y ago
So Trump is simultaneously a complete incompetent blowhard and pulling off these mastermind plans??
- badloginagain 10y ago
  I think it's likely that Trump will make difficult demands of his staff, and they find a way to make it happen. The President doesn't necessary get involved with the details of formulating the strategy to accomplish the demand. What's more important is the President thinks about risk factors, fallout, long-term implications of the strategy their staff proposes. The 'incompetent' comes from an apparent disregard of thinking about the consequences of his actions. The 'blowhard' is self-documented.
  - intended 10y ago
    just because the demands are difficult, doesnt mean that the staff will work to make it happen. The staff can let it fail and place the blame on a rival The staff can fail, and distract the president The staff can fail, and blame a convenient political opponent. The staff can succeed, in a few things, but not the whole remit. They can then spin it as a success The task could be very complicated and would require multiple steps to achieve it. But finally, the reason this fails as an argument - is that gutting the security apparatus of the state when you control it, is absurd. The assumption for this to be non-absurd, is that the CIA is working against the government, and the constitution. If that was the case, then following the constitution and declassifying their arsenal was not necessary in the least. Essentially, the theory can be disproved by contradiction/occams razor.
    - learc83 10y ago
      >Essentially, the theory can be disproved by contradiction/occams razor. You haven't disproved anything. You've stated an opposing viewpoint. I haven't seen any evidence that leads me to believe that someone in the administration leaked this to harm the CIA, but nothing you said came close to proving that that's not what happened. >the reason this fails as an argument - is that gutting the security apparatus of the state when you control it, is absurd Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the hypothetical administration leakers will come to the same cost benefit conclusion you did. I can think of limitless situations in which covertly injuring the CIA may appear to be worth it to people within the administration. The administration doesn't appear to trust the CIA and it's entirely possible they view them as an enemy to be dealt with rather than an asset to be controlled. Again I don't think this is the likely explanation, but it's not so unlikely that you can just throw out "occams razor I'll accept your concession now."