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

Are you seriously still referring to that post which I clarified a month ago?.. Again, I explained a month ago what the facts were behind that post, the discussion should have ended right then and there. Most people would have only needed it explained once.. in fact, you are the only one in this thread who seems to have this comprehension issue. If that's the post you are saying needs correction, then I got news for you.. it was corrected a month ago. I already explained last May that it was the Director of National Intelligence who made a statement on behalf of the the USIC, which is a federation of 17 agencies. No one here ever argued that they independently came to the conclusion.

 

You keep saying that you clarified it sometime in the past, so what your now telling me is that "17 Intelligence Agencies" did not determine Russian "hacking?" If you are now agreeing with that, why do you refuse to say it?

 

I clarified a month ago that the 17 agencies did not independently make the conclusion, but that the Director of National Intelligence made a statement on behalf of the USIC(which is a federation of 17 agencies) that Russia was behind the cyber attacks. It's not that difficult to understand.. not for most people anyway

You're the only person in this thread having trouble with this

 

Then you now disagree with your statement, "What's false about it, are you suggesting there aren't 17 intelligence agencies saying Russia was trying to interfere with our elections?"

Were "17 Intelligence agencies" saying that Russia was hacking or no?

 

I think the shame will ruin them. And perhaps a rebirth of a more jfk style democrat party will occur.

 

You are asserting a meaning into the statement that was never intended to begin with, even after everything has been explained. The answer to your question is yes there was, however it was coming from a statement made by the head of the USIC on behalf of the agencies that make up that federation, and was not done by each agency independently. Its kind of similar to how the president is in a position where he can make a formal statement on behalf of the United States.

 

If your answer is, "the answer to your question is yes there was," then you are still wrong. The correct answer is no, at no time did "17 Intelligence Agencies" say that Russia hacked/stole/bought or whatever, the election. Your example of the President is wrongheaded. The President sets policy, regardless of the opinions the various agencies. Totally irrelevant to an analytical conclusion that the majority of agencies had no hand, or expertise in.

You're not the only one who can't get it right, regardless of how many times the facts have been presented.

CNN's Jim Acosta gets fact about intelligence community's Russia assessment wrong, calls it 'fake news'

 

That's not true at all actually, the president's powers to pass policies on his own are very limited, he must go through congress for the vast majority of his policies. Despite this fact, he is still in a position to make a formal statement on behalf of the United States. You could even argue that the Director of National Intelligence has more power over the USIC than the president does over the United States. Also, whether or not the Director can make a statement on behalf of the USIC is not in question, he can and he did.

The notion that 17 agencies said that Russia was behind the cyber attacks is inaccurate when one assumes that it means that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion. However, as I explained a month ago, that is not what was meant in that post. The fact of the matter is that the Director of National Intelligence made the statement on their behalf last October. This statement was followed by an ICA report that was released in January that was conducted by 3 agencies along with the Director's office. (as explained in the fact check)

You are still asserting that what was meant in my post was that the 17 agencies independently made the statement, and that it was not the Director who made the statement on behalf of the other agencies. I am telling you that I made that post, and that is not what was meant. You don't have to agree with the wording, but as I explained before, it was not my intention to suggest that the 17 agencies all conducted their own investigation, or came the the conclusion independently. I've explained to you already what was meant, but you keep responding back to try and tell me "no this is what you really meant!". Well no, that is not what I meant, and if there were any confusions over what I meant in that post, all you had to do was ask me. At no point did I argue that the 17 independently made the conclusion.

As for the CNN thing, it is again referring to the ICA report, and not the October statement. How do I know this? because when the October statement was made, there were not 3 agencies who had conducted an investigation. The only agency to complete an investigation at that time was the Department of Homeland Security.

Again, read the fact check and its update
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

 

I'm perfectly happy to have you stick to your guns on this issue, even though you are trying to have it both ways, ultimately, you refuse to disavow your previous statements because you want to pretend that you were right all along, instead of wrong throughout. But since the walk backs have been coming fast and furious the past week, I'll post them and let you dig in your heels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-over-russia-meddling/?utm_term=.ebdbf3060a8e

 

No, I am not trying to have it both ways, again you are arguing with your own misinterpretations. I explained a month ago what the facts were behind the post, but you keep distorting what was actually meant to maintain an argument. I said what I said, and then clarified the facts, but you continue to try and tell me what was actually meant in my own post. It's illogical, you can go back through this entire thread, at no point did I argue that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion. I made my initial post, and then clarified the facts. If I meant what you claim I meant, then my clarification would have been entirely different, I would not have said that it was the Director who made the statement on on behalf of the USIC. I already explained a month ago what was meant, and you are the only one in this thread who seems to be having trouble understanding this. You've now gone from misunderstanding my clarification and using my own source as the base of your argument, to then denying that you based your argument on my source, to then unwittingly admitting that you used my own source as the base of my argument, to now emphasizing on what was posted before the details were clarified.

You don't agree with what I posted first. Got it, I should have been more specific to begin with.. but once I explained what the facts were behind that statement, that should have been the end of it, and it would have been the end of it had you not misinterpreted me. Everyone else understood the details the first time I explained it to them, there is no excuse for it to take you this long to understand.

Edit:

By the way, you are again posting an article discussing the ICA report from January, and not the October statement. Here's a tip to help you remember, if they are discussing the 3 agencies who completed an investigation, then it is definitely not about the October statement. There were not that many agencies who had conducted an investigation at the time of the October statement, it was just the Department of Homeland Security.

 

I'm not distorting anything. I quoted your own posts, asked if you still agreed with them, and you said yes.

They were your own words. No distortions. Stop being so dishonest.

 

Good job

I already clarified what was meant in the original post a month ago... yet you continue to emphasize on what was posted before I clarified.

 

You say that, but when I offered you the chance to clarify those posts, you refused. So how exactly are you clarifying anything if you are standing by the same garbage you were saying a month ago?

And your "17 Intelligence Agencies" story continues to unravel...

James Clapper Confronts CNN's Narrative... While on CNN

 

That is an outright lie, I clarified a month ago what the details were. You are just choosing to ignore it... once again, the agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, the Director of National Intelligence made a statement on their behalf, before conducting an ICA report that was completed in January by four(3 + the Director's office) different agencies

As for the CNN article, again it is discussing the January ICA report, and not the October statement. I explained this to you before, there were not three agencies to investigate at the time of the October statement, it was just the Department of Homeland Security at the time. You still don't seem to understand the difference, so I am going to refer to the fact check again.

 

Refer to post 684. I quoted your comments and asked you to clarify if you still believed them and you affirmed that you did. So if you won't deny the factual inaccuracies of any of your posts in this thread, in what way are you "clarifying" anything? Answer, you're not.

 

You were asking me to clarify a post that was already clarified more than a month ago. I already clarified the facts, the Director of National Intelligence made a statement last October on behalf of the USIC, which is a federation of 17 agencies, but the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion themselves.

Those are the facts that were clarified over a month ago, if you are having any problems with these details, then it is your own fault.

 

So because you claim that you "clarified" a post from a month ago, when I asked you more recently to "clarify" your statement, you instead confirmed it, invalidating any subsequent "clarification." This is why it's hard to get a straight answer from you. You continue to stand by a statement that you also claim you "clarified."

 

Are you serious right now?..

I didn't just claim to clarify, I did clarify. Also, you weren't asking me to clarify, you were basically asking me if the statement that says 17 agencies said that Russia was behind the cyber attacks was true. Well yes, a statement that represents the 17 agencies that make up the USIC was made saying that Russia was behind the attacks, however the statement was made by the Director of National Intelligence who spoke on behalf of the USIC, and was not done independently by each agency. Now you might not agree with the manner in which the Director spoke on behalf of the USIC, but regardless of whether you agree or not, the statement was still made.

 

Then you've clarified nothing. You're still sticking with the "17 Intelligence Agencies" talking point, even as mainstream source after mainstream source has dropped it. You are like that Japanese soldier on an island still fighting, even though the war is long over.

 

You're confusing what those mainstream sources are talking about, they are not talking about the October statement, they are talking about the January ICA report. Once again, there were 3 agencies involved in the investigations for the ICA report, and 4 overall who were involve in the report.

The October statement however only had one agency who had contributed with an investigation, and that is the Department of Homeland Security, who was NOT a part of the January ICA report. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, but the ICA report and the October statement are not the same thing. Read the fact check

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/


I don't think you are fit to have this discussion, you seem unable to understand basic details. The ICA report was based on an investigation made by the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI. The October statement was based on an investigation by just the Department of Homeland Security. The only agency that was a part of both the October statement and the ICA report was the Director's office, which again does not do any investigating itself. It should be quite easy to differentiate articles that discuss the ICA from articles that are discussing the October statement.

In regards to the "17 agencies" remark, you're basically trying to assert a meaning in the term "17 agencies" that was never intended or argued to begin with, and even after it is explained to you again and again and again and again that no one here is arguing what you keep asserting, you make no progress of any kind. You go on pretending it means something entirely different from what was explained to you.

 

You just post the same crap over and over. You've posted that "fact check" several times, I've read it and responded to it, several times. And I've posted the link to the October joint statement several times, but no matter how many times I've posted it, you still can't count correctly. You always get 17 agencies from it.

 

That's because you keep reposting the same distortions of what was posted. You post articles discussing the ICA that never refer to the October statement, and you keep asserting that the term "17 agencies" must mean that they independently made the conclusion. That's not what was meant, and it's already been explained to you that is not what was means.

I have two questions for you.. just two, so this should be extremely easy.

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?

2. What federation did the Director speak on behalf of when he said "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises" and "The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion"?

 

I've posted the link to the October joint statement multiple times. You seemed to be immune to it. As for your questions, there are 16 intelligence agencies plus the ODNI which technically isn't a separate intelligence agency, although it's an independent agency to support the DNI. However I'm not criticizing you on using the number 17 or 16; you can use whichever you want. But the ODNI, or DNI, isn't the president of a federation of agencies. Several of these agencies are subordinate to the DoD. If anything, the DNI is a clearing house, not a united federation of intelligence agencies, but given your inability to understand that...well.

Let me ask you a question: Which part of the intelligence community did you work in and was it before or after the creation of the DNI?

 

That's nice, but I'm referring to the multiple articles that you posted discussing the ICA that you used to discuss the October statement. You seem to not understand the difference between the ICA report which was released last January, and the joint statement that was released last October. In at least three different posts you used articles that made no mentioning of the October statement as the basis for your argument.

That's fine, and I already addressed earlier that the Director's office doesn't do any investigations itself, but the Director can orchestrate the other agencies to carry out investigations, and he can also make official statements on behalf of the other agencies.

I think you're misunderstanding the second question, I didn't ask if the Director was the president of the USIC, I asked you what federation did the Director speak on behalf of. You should know by now that the USIC is a federation of 17 agencies whose head is the Director of National Intelligence. I had said that answering just the two questions should be extremely easy for you, I apologize for making that assumption. Again the second question is what federation was the Director speaking on behalf of in his October statement?

To answer your questions, I did not work in the intelligence community.

 

No, I argued on the merits of what was actually written on the October statement, and what agencies it specifically listed.

It wasn't 17.

It's not a federation. Good grief! The CIA is an independent agency, the FBI is subordinate to the Justice Dept, the NSA, DIA, and several others are under the DoD. For someone who was never part of the intelligence community, and doesn't know anything about it, in any capacity, your commitment to your inaccurate statements is remarkable. It's very internet worthy.