When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

That proves "your point" that I never disagreed with or suggested otherwise. The 17 agencies didn't all make their own independent statements, I never suggest that they did, but the joint statement published by the Director of National Security is the consensus from 17 agencies.

Calling the source that fact checks the news "fake news" isn't exactly adding credibility to your argument.

 

I realize that is your claim.

If you intend to cling to that, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Why, for instance, did Trump's son in law suggest to the Russians that they set up a secret communications link between the Trump transition team and Putin using Russian intelligence equipment. You will note that the Trump Administration has not even hinted at denying this story.

Why, for instance, do we have multiple examples of this arrogant and inexperienced President personally trying to slow down or block any investigation?

If this is a hoax, there would be no reason for him to stonewall, lie and obfuscate the way he and his surrogates have.

If your rationalization is that Trump and Putin are trolling the Democrats, letting them promote a hoax so they can pull the rug out from them, there are questions regarding that.

Putin and Trump would have to be colluding in such an effort.

Trump isn't that smart, and Putin knows it.

That's not all that doesn't fit your pat rationalization. There's plenty more!

 

You don't have an argument.

All you do is repeat a discredited claim and cling to it like a security blanket!

 

Ironic!

 

I suppose that lies are ideas too!

 

Now you've got it.

Your head has been filled with...ideas.

 

______
Can you prove that statement absolutely? Isn't this another made up fake assertion by the Progressive Marxist Left. Everyone knows that the Progressive Marxist Democrats have colluded with the Russian Communists for decades. Suddenly they wear lilly white garments making specious claims about their opponents. Please explain Ted Kennedy's role in collusion with Russia, FDR, the Rosenberg's, Whitaker Chambers, Oppenheimer Democrats all. The list is endless.

 

If the Russia collusion attacks are exposed as a hoax grand juries should start treason and espionage investigations to find and indict those responsible.

 

Given Politifacts record, and the record of other "fact checkers," I'm perfectly fine with calling a "true" statement in which their own research contradicts it being true, as fake news.

And again, there was no "consensus" from all 17 agencies. I've seen no documentation that the DNRO, to name one, has weighed in on Russian hacking, and if she did, on what basis would she have done it? The imagery collected by her agency?

Although pictures would be nice.

 

It's true I've been repeating the same things for a week on this issue, however TCassa89, has been asking the same things over and over and over again. But if you think anything I've claimed has been discredited, please link to your source.

 

http://www.networkworld.com/article...ng-machines-so-easy-that-grandma-can-do-.html
Well,here is one of the reasons HILLARY lost the election--
No, I disagree,trump lied, he cheated & he stole---
There is no lower standard then to use a foreign country to get the results you can't get otherwise----Nope, the GOP owns this terrible debacle----

 

Which statement?

I think you Trumpsters are whistling past the graveyard, if the bahavior of your chosen hero is any indication.

 

See this is what I was talking about with the self contradictions. I explain to you that the 17 agencies didn't independently conclude that Russia meddled with our elections, but that a consensus from the 17 agencies was represented in a joint statement published by the Director of National Security(which is the same conclusion of the fact check). You say you agree, but then you explain that the 17 agencies weren't involved in the investigation. Then when I explain to you that no one in this thread claimed that all 17 agencies were behind the investigation (or that the 17 agencies independently came to this conclusion), you backtrack and divert to blaming everyone else for the fact that your entire argument has been based on your own misinterpretations

Rather than face up to what you did, you backtrack on your post of agreement, blame everyone else, including the fact check who you previously said backs your argument... and now you're complaining about their ruling because it doesn't correspond with your argument. You criticize their conclusion while not addressing how they came to that conclusion. The Director of National Security released a joint statement saying that the Intelligence Community at large is confident that Russia meddled with our elections. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the manner in which the joint statement was made, it still took place, and it still represents the Intelligence Community, which is in fact 17 agencies.

 

I can only believe that the names other than Ted Kennedy are either foreign, or unknown to you.

 

This is why you can't understand what I'm talking about and why this has been going on for a week. You can't say that 17 agencies did not independently conclude that Russia meddled with our elections and then say there was a consensus from the 17 agencies anyway. Based on what? The investigation that they never conducted? I get that you don't get how contradictory that is, but it shows how committed to the bit you are.

No I've been pretty clear, and as you demonstrated in your very first paragraph, your thinking on this is all mish mash. That's why we are heading to week two.

Oh and you never answered my question about the NRO director. What was her conclusion based on her agency resources?

 

It's not a contradiction, you're just misinterpreting what it means again. The consensus from the Intelligence Community was released via joint statement form the Director of National Intelligence. You seem to think that if an agency doesn't conduct the investigation themselves, then they cannot give an assessment or even a general agreement with the other agencies on the matter. That's like saying the jury in a court can't come to a verdict unless they themselves were the ones conducting the polices investigations. It's nonsensical

You have a very narrow interpretation on the Intelligence Community's function that suggests that their consensus cannot exist in any other form than the one in your head. Look, perhaps you don't agree with the manner in which the statement was made, but the fact of the matter is the Director of National Intelligence represents the 17 agencies that make up the Intelligence Community, and the Director released a joint statement that gives a consensus (a consensus is a general agreement) from the Intelligence Community that Russia meddled with our elections.

If you don't want to give the statement the amount of significance that was intended, that is reasonable, and I even expressed to AmericanNationalist earlier that his criticisms were reasonable, but whether or not the statement represents 17 agencies is not in question. The USIC is literally a collections of 17 agencies, and the Director of National Intelligence represents those 17 agencies

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Once again, you're dancing around the fact that your entire argument has been based on your own misinterpretations of everyone else in this discussion. You know what I mean when I refer to the consensus from the 17 agencies (it's the joint statement). You know by now that no one is saying there was joint investigation, you know by now that no one is saying that the 17 agencies independently made separate statements. You know this by now, but you can't acknowledge it, because that would mean your entire argument was nothing more than your own misinterpretation.

So you pretend they're trying to argue something they are not, and then when it is explained to you again that they're not arguing what you say they are arguing, you go "Rinse and repeat" and don't acknowledge that you were misinterpreting them

 

I'm not dancing around anything. There is no, nor has there ever been, a consensus from the 17 intelligence agencies about this Russia hacking. I've asked you to provide the statement from all 17 agencies and you've consistently failed to do so.

You bet on a losing horse.

 

lol I literally just posted that no one is claiming that the 17 agencies independently made separate statements.. that was literally the post you were quoting in your reply. See this is exactly what I am talking about, you are unable to acknowledge that you have been misinterpreting everyone else, so you divert to pretending that they are arguing something that they are not.

 

That has been completely and utterly debunked as arrant nonsense!

 

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were United States citizens who were executed on June 19, 1953 after being convicted of committing espionage for the Soviet Union.
David Greenglass (March 2, 1922 – July 1, 2014) was an atomic spy for the Soviet Union who worked on the Manhattan Project. He provided testimony that helped convict his sister and brother-in-law Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, who were executed for their spying activity. Greenglass served nine and a half years in prison.
Alger Hiss (November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American government official who was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948[1] and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950. Before he was tried and convicted, he was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department official and as a U.N. official.
Whittaker Chambers, born Jay Vivian Chambers (April 1, 1901 – July 9, 1961) was an American editor who denounced his Communist spying. After early years as a Communist Party member (1925) and Soviet spy (1932–193, he defected from communism (underground and open party) and worked at Time magazine (1939–194.
The Robert Oppenheimer security hearing was a 1954 proceeding by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) that explored the background, actions, and associations of J. Robert Oppenheimer, he was a member of numerous Communist front organizations, and was associated with Communist Party USA members, including his wife and his brother.

Explain all those coincidences with the Democratic Party and Marxist Communism?

 

You literally cannot see the cognitive dissonance.

You claim that "17 Intelligence Agencies" had a consensus (no they didn't) and that they all got together and made a joint statement (no they didn't). I think part of your confusion deals with you thinking any statement or report by the DNI is a "joint statement," even though the "joint statements" clearly specify which agencies are involved. You've refused to address that (and I can't blame you) and intend to ride your "17 Intelligence Agencies" - Slim Pickins style, all the way down.

 

The Director of National Intelligence is the head of the USIC(17 agencies), and what he says is that the USIC is confident that Russia meddled with our elections. What YOU are saying is it's just him and DHS who are the Intelligence Community. That when the head of the USIC refers to the USIC in his statement, he actually means just him and DHS. Also, I am calling it a joint statement because that is exactly what the Director refers to it as

It's night and day

 

I never said, "What YOU are saying is it's just him and DHS who are the Intelligence Community." You've made a false statement, so I expect you to back it up or apologize.