Elections Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?

[unimackpass]

Our resident Hillary apologist should love this one.

 

[unimackpass]

Yes TYT but they destroy Hillary and Bernie defends Tulsi.

This is one time I can't disagree with tyt.
Would be interested in the savage take on this.
Lots of lettuce in the in datt word salad I imagine.

 

[CauseImbetta]

I'm quite sure she's a transvestite.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Hearing all the clamor about the NYT first saying Hillary said Tulsi was a Russian asset, then now saying she was referring to a Republican asset, I finally went and listened to the podcast.

Found here at 35 minutes in: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/campaign-hq-with-david-plouffe/id1479487160

When Hillary said they have their eye on somebody who is currently in the democratic primary and are grooming her to be the 3rd party candidate, she was referring to the Republicans. Hillary then said, "she's the favorite of the Russians" while referring to the same democratic primary person (Tulsi). "They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, she might not, because she's also a Russian asset." It's not clear whether Hillary is calling Tulsi a Russian asset or just the favorite of the Russians, but either way, who cares? It's clear that Hillary is asserting the Republicans are working in step with Russia's favorite.

 

[unimackpass]

Hearing all the clamor about the NYT first saying Hillary said Tulsi was a Russian asset, then now saying she was referring to a Republican asset, I finally went and listened to the podcast.

Found here at 35 minutes in: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/campaign-hq-with-david-plouffe/id1479487160

When Hillary said they have their eye on somebody who is currently in the democratic primary and are grooming her to be the 3rd party candidate, she was referring to the Republicans. Hillary then said, "she's the favorite of the Russians" while referring to the same democratic primary person (Tulsi). "They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, she might not, because she's also a Russian asset." It's not clear whether Hillary is calling Tulsi a Russian asset or just the favorite of the Russians, but either way, who cares? It's clear that Hillary is asserting the Republicans are working in step with Russia's favorite.

Looks like some meddling was going on.

 

[waiguoren]

Looks like some meddling was going on.

Tim Pool needs to drop the anger. His psychotic breakdown here is completely unreasonable. Clinton claimed the Republicans were grooming Gabbard, not Russia. Clinton should have been clearer in her phrasing, but a careful listen to the original recording makes this clear.

It appears to me that the main reason so many outlets originally misreported Clinton's original statement is that they just copied other outlets.

The Twitterbot activity and praise on propaganda networks.

There are thousands of bots putting out all kinds of messages. According to the Mueller report, "sowing discord" is a primary goal of the IRA troll operation. Unless you've done a careful analysis demonstrating that the bot accounts have produced more pro-Gabbard posts than pro-other posts, you're off base here.

You're lying about this one.

In HUMINT, asset=agent. I think you know this by now after multiple people have corrected you on this point.

That Republicans are grooming her to run third party. It would work by for example having her praised on Fox and get softball interviews, and suggesting that she's being treated unfairly.

Looks like you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy", as Hillary Clinton used to speak of.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In HUMINT, asset=agent. I think you know this by now after multiple people have corrected you on this point.

The reason you used "agent" rather than what was actually said "asset" is that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the content of the statement. This why, BTW, to people with a more sophisticated understanding of communication, words are rarely truly interchangeable.

Looks like you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy", as Hillary Clinton used to speak of.

I believe that Republicans act in their best interests, if that's what you mean.

This remains the best work I've seen on distinguishing crazy CTs from normal ideas:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/

 

[waiguoren]

The reason you used "agent" rather than what was actually said "asset" is that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the content of the statement.

Mind-reading again. Bad look for you.

This why, BTW, to people with a more sophisticated understanding of communication, words are rarely truly interchangeable.

As I've already told you, Hillary Clinton has experience with HUMINT. It's therefore quite unlikely she would commit the civilian error of misusing the term "asset" as you're suggesting.

From the journal Intelligence and National Security:

Some terminology here is important; specifically, the critical difference between case officers and sources, agents,or assets – the latter three terms are basically interchangeable.​

So again, agent=asset, and again, Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent---someone working in the employ of the Russian state to collect information on the US surreptitiously and pass it on to the Russian state.

I believe that Republicans act in their best interests, if that's what you mean.

No, I mean the claim that "The Republicans" are the same as Fox News is the type of statement you have often criticized as a "CT" when it's applied to "The Democrats" and MSNBC or CNN. I'm looking for consistency out of you, and I'm waiting for the evidence for your claim that "The Republicans" are "grooming" Gabbard.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Mind-reading again. Bad look for you.

So the reason you chose not to use the word that Clinton carefully chose (specifically to distinguish from "agent," despite your dishonest arguments) was what if not simply to mislead?

No, I mean the claim that "The Republicans" are the same as Fox News is the type of statement you have often criticized as a "CT" when it's applied to "The Democrats" and MSNBC or CNN. I'm looking for consistency out of you, and I'm waiting for the evidence for your claim that "The Republicans" are "grooming" Gabbard.

I provided evidence already (and obviously Fox News is connected to your party in a way that CNN isn't connected to any party), but you're not trying to understand the point. You've just appointed yourself the GOP's defense lawyer here.

 

[waiguoren]

So the reason you chose not to use the word that Clinton carefully chose (specifically to distinguish from "agent," despite your dishonest arguments) was what if not simply to mislead?

From the journal Intelligence and National Security:

Some terminology here is important; specifically, the critical difference between case officers and sources, agents,or assets – the latter three terms are basically interchangeable.
​

obviously Fox News is connected to your party in a way that CNN isn't connected to any party

I have no party (the closest major party platforms to my views are the Libertarian Party and the US Constitution Party). Otherwise, your claim is not at all obvious to me and reeks of the same type of "CT thinking" you often complain about.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have no party (the closest major party platforms to my views are the Libertarian Party and the US Constitution Party). Otherwise, your claim is not at all obvious to me and reeks of the same type of "CT thinking" you often complain about.

The Constitution Party is a Christian Dominionist party, and their fruitcake 2016 presidential nominee said this about the attempt to defend the rule of law:

From the journal Intelligence and National Security:

Some terminology here is important; specifically, the critical difference between case officers and sources, agents,or assets – the latter three terms are basically interchangeable.​

Interesting choice. I would have included this footnote:

In American construction, if the target accepts the recruitment pitch, the terminology changes. His status is now that of ‘agent’, ‘source’, or ‘asset’. The CIA has a binary approach to recruitment: An agent is either a fully recruited agent or he isn’t. Russian understanding of the term agent encompasses a spectrum of case ofcer and agent relationships. In the Russian view, as long as the agent is providing the material, documents or operational support that his case ofcer requires, the semantics of agent recruitment matter rather less. Russian intelligence may therefore have relationships with cooperative contacts who don’t necessarily need to be fully recruited in order to serve their purpose.

Also note, from the same doc:

Given the diplomatic sensitivity of international espionage, it is conducted by a specifically trained subset of intelligence officers called ‘operations officers’ in the US intelligence community vernacular and ‘case officers’ more universally. Most people in most countries are loyal to their own governments, so the task of the case officer is to find someone with ‘placement and access’ to information that the case officer is seeking and then manipulate that person to betray their compatriots, company, or country, to work as an asset or agent

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

oh look it's Tulsi getting ready to prove Clinton right.

 

[waiguoren]

Interesting choice. I would have included this footnote:

Also note, from the same doc:

I'll ignore the off-topic+inaccurate part of your post and just note that the parts of the document you quoted only bolster my case that agent=asset in HUMINT.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'll ignore the off-topic+inaccurate part of your post and just note that the parts of the document you quoted only bolster my case that agent=asset in HUMINT.

Um, I think you should read it again, and more closely this time.

 

[waiguoren]

Um, I think you should read it again, and more closely this time.

I have already read the document and I am confident you are misreading it.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

I'm talking about news coverage. It was by far the most covered story of the year, and it was generally presented as a major scandal.

It was a major scandal. As was Benghazi.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have already read the document and I am confident you are misreading it.

"In American construction, if the target accepts the recruitment pitch, the terminology changes. His status is now that of ‘agent’, ‘source’, or ‘asset’. The CIA has a binary approach to recruitment: An agent is either a fully recruited agent or he isn’t. Russian understanding of the term agent encompasses a spectrum of case ofcer and agent relationships. In the Russian view, as long as the agent is providing the material, documents or operational support that his case ofcer requires, the semantics of agent recruitment matter rather less. Russian intelligence may therefore have relationships with cooperative contacts who don’t necessarily need to be fully recruited in order to serve their purpose."

And note that in the next footnote, there's a clear implication of a distinction.

Also, note, that you clearly recognize a distinction yourself, which is why you used a word that was different from the one Clinton used.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

From the journal Intelligence and National Security:

Some terminology here is important; specifically, the critical difference between case officers and sources, agents,or assets – the latter three terms are basically interchangeable.
​

I have no party (the closest major party platforms to my views are the Libertarian Party and the US Constitution Party). Otherwise, your claim is not at all obvious to me and reeks of the same type of "CT thinking" you often complain about.

He has proven himself in this thread to be the biggest CT nutter on SD.

 

[waiguoren]

"In American construction, if the target accepts the recruitment pitch, the terminology changes. His status is now that of ‘agent’, ‘source’, or ‘asset’. The CIA has a binary approach to recruitment: An agent is either a fully recruited agent or he isn’t. Russian understanding of the term agent encompasses a spectrum of case ofcer and agent relationships. In the Russian view, as long as the agent is providing the material, documents or operational support that his case ofcer requires, the semantics of agent recruitment matter rather less. Russian intelligence may therefore have relationships with cooperative contacts who don’t necessarily need to be fully recruited in order to serve their purpose."

And note that in the next footnote, there's a clear implication of a distinction.

Also, note, that you clearly recognize a distinction yourself, which is why you used a word that was different from the one Clinton used.

I am unsure if you are lying here or just misreading the document. Either way, I'm beginning to think I have better uses of my time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am unsure if you are lying here or just misreading the document. Either way, I'm beginning to think I have better uses of my time.

Any use of your time would be better than A) lying and B) trying desperately to cover up the fact that you were caught lying.