"Getting along with Russia is a good thing - not a bad thing"

LV426 said:
There's no reason to trust you, so why would I agree to that kind of deal? How about this; if I'm wrong, I will leave, but if you're wrong, you have to doxx yourself. That's a deal I'll take.
Click to expand...

If there's no reason to trust him, why would you agree to that kind of deal?
 
Legion said:
For more than 150 years, The Nation has been committed to fearless, independent journalism.

We have a long history of seeking alternative views and taking unpopular stances. We believe it is important to challenge questionable conventional wisdom and to foster debate—not police it.

Focusing on unreported or inadequately reported issues of major importance and raising questions that are not being asked have always been a central part of our work.

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.

That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations.

To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom.

Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:
 
Legion said:
the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims
Click to expand...

Your link is from September 2017.

Since that time;

1. The Senate Intel Committee said Russia hacked the election
2. Mueller's indictment shows senior Trump advisors were in contact with the individual in contact with the GRU (Likely Roger Stone)
3. A Congressional candidate is said in the indictment to have reached out to the GRU to get hacked info on their opponent

The walls are closing; your window to escape culpability has already closed.

#BurnTheLifeboats
 
LV426 said:
1. The Senate Intel Committee said Russia hacked the election 2. Mueller's indictment shows senior Trump advisors were in contact with the individual in contact with the GRU (Likely Roger Stone)
3. A Congressional candidate is said in the indictment to have reached out to the GRU to get hacked info on their opponent.
Click to expand...

1. The Senate Intel Committee said Russia hacked the election.
They said it and didn't prove it. :D
2. Mueller's indictment shows senior Trump advisors were in contact with the individual in contact with the GRU (Likely Roger Stone)
It shows nothing, except allegations. :D
3. A Congressional candidate is said in the indictment to have reached out to the GRU to get hacked info on their opponent.
So, no actual proof. :D
 
Legion said:
2. Mueller's indictment shows senior Trump advisors were in contact with the individual in contact with the GRU (Likely Roger Stone)
It shows nothing, except allegations
Click to expand...

Well, it's clearly setting the stage for Stone to be indicted next. He's next in the ladder. First, Mueller established that Russians attacked us, then he said in his indictment those Russians were in contact with Stone, who was in contact with Trump's team.

The walls are closing in now.

We already know the motivations for Gates and Flynn conspiring to help Russia, and Manafort too; money, money, money.
 
LV426 said:
They did prove it.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't.

They based their "conclusions" on the January 2017 ICA report, which states: "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

You fail again.

No proof, no truth.
 
Legion said:
No, they didn't.They based their "conclusions" on the January 2017 ICA report, which states: "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”You fail again.No proof, no truth.
Click to expand...

You refuse to read the report.

If you did, you'd have seen this...it's literally on the second page of the July report:

The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 assessed
that Russian activities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election represented a
significant escalation in a long history of Russian attempts to interfere in U.S.
domestic politics. This escalation was made possible by cyber-espionage and
cyber-driven covert influence operations, conducted as part of a broader "active
measures" campaign that included overt messaging through Russian-controlled
propaganda platforms. The ICA revealed key elements of a comprehensive and
multifaceted Russian campaign against the United States as it was understood by
the U.S. Intelligence Community at the end of 2016
Click to expand...

Delete your account.
 
LV426 said:
You refuse to read the report. If you did, you'd have seen this...Delete your account.
Click to expand...

I did see that. How ironic is it that your seemed to think a September 2017 analysis was out of date but cite a Senate report that's based on a January 2017 analysis that the authors admit proves nothing? :D

LV426 said:
Your link is from September 2017.
Click to expand...

You fail.

No proof, no truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top