Tag: united states intelligence community

It wasn’t the first time the president has dismissed the findings of the U.S. intelligence apparatus — last year he sided with Vladimir Putin in refusing to accept that Russia meddled in the 2016 election — and Republicans are finally starting to grow frustrated with the president’s fidelity to Fox News and foreign autocrats over the FBI and CIA. “There’s an awful lot — there’s so much tradition, and history and complexity to some of these foreign policy issues, you have to rely on people who have been working these issues for decades,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said on Fox News Sunday. These people have the real knowledge and you have to listen to them.” Johnson also criticized the president’s plan to pull U.S. troops out of Syria, a move based on his false belief that ISIS has been defeated, which National Intelligence Director Dan Coats contradicted last week. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) talks to Chris about ISIS and the situation in the Middle East pic.twitter.com/I21GkGn1g4 — FoxNewsSunday (@FoxNewsSunday) February 3, 2019 Over on CNN, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) elaborated on why the president’s politicization of intelligence is so troubling. “These are professional people,” he said. “The president’s briefed every day on it. Most of the time they’re pretty much on point.” “It’s troubling to all of us but I think there’s got to be real good communication between the President and the Director of the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence … Most of the time, they’re pretty much on point,” @SenShelby says of Trump criticizing his intel chiefs pic.twitter.com/OFR5dk3u5P — State of the Union (@CNNSotu) February 3, 2019 “It’s troubling to all of us,” said Shelby, “but I think there’s got to be real good communications between the president and the director of the CIA and the director of national intelligence.” But fostering “good communication” between the president and his intelligence chiefs has so far been close to impossible. On Saturday, Time published a terrifying look inside the president’s intelligence briefings, with several officials describing “futile attempts to keep [Trump’s] attention by using visual aids, confining some briefing points to two or three sentences, and repeating his name and title as frequently as possible.” The report notes that the president is prone to have outbursts if material presented in the briefings contradicts his delusions, and that intelligence officials are often warned not to present Trump with findings that contradict views he has expressed in public. The Time report features several other glimpses of Trump’s incompetence and, as one official described it, “willful ignorance” regarding intelligence that dates back to when he first took office. Trump routinely cites his relationship with Kim Jong-un as one of the chief accomplishments of his first two years in office, downplaying the idea that North Korea’s nuclear program is still operational.

Two intelligence officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances he has taken in public. Salwan Georges—The Washington Post/Getty Images That reaction was on display this week. At a Congressional hearing on national security threats, the leaders of all the major intelligence agencies, including the Directors of National Intelligence, the CIA and the FBI contradicted Trump on issues relating to North Korea, Russia, the Islamic State, and Iran. A small number of senior officials, often including the Director of Central Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence or the heads of other agencies depending on the topic, usually deliver it. The reporting for this story is based on interviews with multiple officials who have first hand knowledge of the episodes they describe, and multiple others who have been briefed on them. Trump, they said, pointed at the map and said he knew that Nepal was part of India, only to be told that it is an independent nation. Several pointed to concerns regarding Trump’s assessment of the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear capabilities. After Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un last summer, the North claimed to have destroyed its major underground nuclear testing facility at Punggye-ri, and Trump has gone out of his way to credit the claim. Intelligence officials from multiple agencies later warned Trump that entrances at the facility that had been closed after the summit could still be reopened. For now, the briefers are heartened by the intelligence community leaders who risked Trump’s ire by contradicting him in public testimony this week.

If I wanted to become a dictator in the United States, I would mostly work within the law until I have consolidated power I would use this media network to spread my propaganda that characterized my supporters as patriotic and my political opponents as unpatriotic or inhuman I would identify vulnerable minority groups and convince my supporters that these groups pose a mortal threat to their way of life and existence I would use my media network to malign all sources of news and opinion outside of my media network so my supporters solely rely on sources I approve of for information I would use the Us vs. Them mentality I have created with my media network to inflame the outrage of my supporters I would channel the outrage of my supporters into voting movements to improve my party’s election results I would use my party’s election gains to pass legislation and appoint judges and bureaucrats who will lawfully suppress votes against my party I would use my propaganda to convince my followers they may have to use force to overthrow the government I would run for president at an auspicious time I would time my campaign to coincide with deep disillusionment with the major political parties I would stoke my supporters’ mistrust of and disappointment in their party leaders and government institutions I would portray myself as a strong, bold and decisive leader to normalize rule by decree I would send subtle hints to the my hardcore supporters that violence and hatred directed at my political enemies will be tolerated I would try to identify everything my supporters wanted to hear, and then say it loudly and often, without regard to the ethics or legality of my proposed policies Upon election, I would work to dismantle the checks and balances embedded in the the Constitution that constrain the powers of the presidency I would work to make sure elected members of my party know their offices depend upon my patronage I would use my bully pulpit and propaganda network to completely destroy the faith of the American people in the justice department to investigate crimes I would use my pardon powers to signal to my now sometimes violent supporters that not only will I condone the use of violence, but they will suffer no criminal consequences for doing so I would rapidly go to work stacking the courts with judges who are unlikely to hold me accountable for a crime while in office I would align myself with powerful industrialists and bribe them with tax cuts in exchange for their firm support I would encourage large corporations to homogenize the media to expand the reach of my propaganda I would work to curb or completely eliminate net neutrality to limit the ability of my political opponents to counter my propaganda I would begin to make overt overtures towards authoritarianism to normalize fascism in the United States I would use my new friendships with hostile nations to influence or change voting results I would manufacture real or artificial existential crises to shore up support for my government and justify seizing more powers and shirking more checks and balances I would begin to threaten my political enemies with extrajudicial imprisonment and torture When I have finally consolidated power, I would call for a Constitutional convention in which I author an amendment to the Constitution that allows me to serve as president for life

(CNN)Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats raised the alarm on growing cyberattack threats against the United States, saying the situation is at a "critical point" and coming out forcefully against Russia. "The warning signs are there. Coats compared the "warning signs" to those the United States faced ahead of the September 11 terrorist attacks. "It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then-CIA Director George Tenet, the system is blinking red. And here we are nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say, the warning lights are blinking red again," Coats said. Coats referred to the indictments and alluded to upcoming election threats, but said "focusing on the potential impact of these actions, on our midterm election, misses the more important point: These actions are persistent, they're pervasive, and they are meant to undermine America's democracy on a daily basis, regardless of whether it is election time or not. Russia actors and others are exploring vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure as well." Coats added, "What's serious about the Russians is their intent. In his remarks, Coats pointed to the indictment as showing "exactly what they're trying to do or what they've done through their military intelligence relative to elections." While Coats will not be sitting down with Putin, he was asked Friday what his message to Putin would be if he was given the chance to speak with the Russian leader.

Rachel Maddow reports on a bipartisan assessment from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that confirms the U.S. intelligence community's findings about Russian intrusion in the 2016 election. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc About: MSNBC is the premier destination for…