I would not be the least surprised if they were, but common sense is that whatever political wind is blowing will blow on all of them and produce similar results. They are all just branches of the government and I'm sure swap personnel just like any other 'industry' does.
I don't feel we are having this argument on a presumption that we each have to provide the same amount of evidence for our views. I am assuming this supposed conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, homeland security, NSA, etc. etc. is not based on any evidence but more of a hunch?
Can you explain why, then, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, etc. etc. first conspired to make it seem like Trump was being helped by Russia and then, a few days before the election, the FBI said they would open an investigation in Clintons emails (which helped Trump a lot)?
erm, by stepping out of the normal rules where people can examine what she sent. We don't know what she deleted.
But people can examine what was sent because the classified emails were send from other departments (even though they also handled the communication in a way not fully consistent with all rules). Regarding the supposed deleted emails thats another smokescreen. from the FBI investigation:
Comey testified that the FBI "didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice."
So again: Is there any actual evidence that points to bad intentions that you got that the FBI don't have?
I am sorry to repeat myself, but we got 0 emails from Trump, 0 years of tax returns. Are HRC and Trump being treated with the same presumption of guilt/innocence?
There has been a number of official investigations into her use of emails. The conclusion of those investigations is that she was "careless" and no charges have been filed.
Because she deleted them? And being careless is a crime - motivation is no defence, neither is incompetence.
The claim of deleted emails was also investigated. By the FBI. Who are such great friends of HRC that they arguably cost her the election: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The CIA don't just fail during Iraq. They are liars. They lie all the time. They overthrow governments. They deal in drugs and arms. Hullo, Iran-Contra ... who d'ya think was running that little illegal op?
But suddenly, because of some wild and whacky claims about Trump, the left suddenly love them. The world is insane.
I have heard nearly the same argument being used to dismiss the official findings in 9/11: we "know" that "they" (CIA, NSA, FBI, etc.) lie and therefore whatever they have to say can't be trusted.
I don't "love" the CIA and I don't claim they have a perfect record. But it ain't the case that the CIA either "lie all the time" or that I have to "love" them. In this case the available evidence is in my view pretty clear on it's own and the claims are backed up by many different agencies.
Heck, even Trump seems to accept it, and certainly all the people close to him do.