Reply With Quote
Sometimes I sit in my Lazy Boy at nite watching CNN/MSNBC just bellowin' that in' line.
remember all the "rigged election" talk from trump before the election?
maybe he expected to lose and knew news of russia hacking would come out. maybe he thought it would benefit him instead of hurt him.
dun dun dunnnnn
Sometimes I sit in my Lazy Boy at nite watching CNN/MSNBC just bellowin' that in' line.
Oddly enough the Steele dossier said that Russia was trying to think of ways to get Sanders supporters to vote Trump.
When Louise Mensch is the only other person still talking about the Steele dossier you should stop and think
I case less about red herrings, and what the Short Attention Span Brigade has moved onto, and more about evaluating evidence.
It stands/falls on its own. Some of the items have been proven out, some not.
As noted before, it looks and feels enough like real world intel I have handled to make me much less hesitant to dismiss it outright.
The IC community dismissed it and wouldn't include it in their report because it was full of unverifiable bull Steele received from paying unverifiable third parties.
I lose respect for you every time you bring up that you care more about evaluating evidence and "it stands/falls on its own" after you've been given proof that the DNC hack was not done by Russia but framed to look like Russia. You don't give a about the evidence when it contradicts the story you are pushing.
Provide a link to definitive statements regarding the intelligence community's collective opinion of the dossier.
It was not provided in the ODNI specifically because it was unverifiable bull .
I have left things out of more than one audit report where I couldn't quite pin down as fully do ented, but I was more than 90% certain a company was doing something wrong.
Please provide a link to a direct statement regarding the reasoning for decision of an intelligence official to "not include it in their report".
You made a claim. Back it up.Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Provide a link to definitive statements regarding the intelligence community's collective opinion of the dossier.
Unverified doesn't mean they thought it was completely false, that is your interpretation of what you read on Breitbart, not their direct words.
That leaves us with two significant takeaways from the analysis:
1) there are substantial reasons to give the report credibility (highly credible author, reports of other links and communications between the Trump campaign and Russia, much of the structure and substance of the reports, the fact that the US intelligence community seems to think it deserves further investigation) and reasons to question its veracity (access to Kremlin seems too good, lack of caveat or caution in assessments, factual errors and other details).
2) There is more than enough material (sources named, locations, organizations, time frames) to keep the FBI and the intelligence community busy with an investigation for several months.http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/16/opinio...-news-dowling/Editor's Note: Nick Dowling has worked with the intelligence community as a customer, producer, and policymaker for more than 20 years. He was director of European Affairs on the National Security Council staff at the White House during the Clinton administration. He worked closely with former MI6 officials in private intelligence work. He is currently president and CEO of IDS International, which provides training, research, logistics, and cyber security work for the United States government. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
That pretty much sums up my impression as well. It is more than enough on its face to warrant some serious investigation.
anyhoo. times up.
would James Clapper be a good enough source?
we all know how this plays out. you post a clip of clapper saying no evidence, and djohn posts a tweet about how clapper was never briefed on it in the first place. just saved you all the time.
chiming in completely off topic. Thanks for trying.
no evidence = unverified
Show me anything where anyone in the IC dismisses the dossier outright as being completely false.
Clapper was very measured with his words.
Play devils advocate for a moment then. If the dossier is to be discounted entirely, as you wish, it should be easy to do.
Is there anything in the dossier that could be factually verified, that actually was factually verified?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
