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

No, because there is already evidence of "collusion" a.k.a conspiracy. There is a reason the administration's line has gone from "no collusion" to "collusion is not a crime".

However, every element of a crime is spelled out in one sentence of an email:
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and it's government support for Mr. Trump."

Once the administration took the bait and agreed to meet with representatives of the Russian government they committed a crime and entered a conspiracy to defraud the United States. How deep the conspiracy goes remains to be seen.

With so many competing interests muddying the water they've made this more complicated then it is at its root; 1) theft 2) the product of the theft--stolen good--was shopped and pursued 3) the stolen good changed hands 4) the stolen good was utilized for a nefarious purpose. Each step is a crime. The only thing we don't know clearly is how the stolen good changed hands.

In time there will be an indictment of the Americans involved. The fact that Mueller quoted the President in the last indictment is not a good sign. The country is definitely headed toward rough water in the coming months.

 

I would be interested in why you think 17 Intelligence Agencies determined that Russia interfered in our elections? Could you list all 17 agencies that came to that conclusion?

 

The answer to your question is in the answer to the question that I already asked you

Who is the United States Intelligence Community?

Also, to clarify (again) the director spoke on behalf of the 17 agencies, they did not independently come to the conclusion.

 

Not well.

'It's either that or an orange jumpsuit': Explosive Bob Woodward book reportedly recounts Trump's lawyer's effort to keep him from interviewing with Mueller

https://www.businessinsider.com/john-dowd-mock-mueller-interview-bob-woodward-book-2018-9

 

Don't bother.

The Trumpsters all know that the wheels are coming off the Trump circus wagon and the carnival barker in chief is coming apart.

When they get to the point where they're playing these childish little parsing games, they know.....

 

So you had previously admitted in this thread that all 17 agencies didn't determine Russia interfered in our elections. Are you now backtracking?

 

What I clarified before was that the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, but that the Director of the USIC spoke on behalf of the 17 agencies. Is that in itself backtracking? well first I would have had to have said that the 17 agencies did independently come to the conclusion, which I did not do.

The question was never about whether or not 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion. No one in this thread claimed that they did, that was never up for debate. The question was whether or not the director's statement represented 17 agencies when he spoke on behalf of the USIC, and in order to determine that, it is imperative that you understand who the United States Intelligence Community actually is

...so once again, who is the United States Intelligence Community?

 

Aahhh..the tears of disappointment from this huge nothing burger is like an energy drink for me...please keep it coming!!!!!

 

No, the question has always been whether or not 17 agencies independently came to that conclusion, because that was what you and others stated, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

17 Different agencies.

So if they didn't, and just three did, then we don't have a conflict.

 

Nowhere in that quoted post, or anywhere in this thread did anyone say they each independently came to the conclusion. In fact, it has been said several times that they did not independently come to the conclusion, but that the Director spoke on behalf of the agencies as the head of the USIC.. which is also what was explained in the fact checkthat was posted way back on page 4 of this thread

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

Nobody here is arguing that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion, you have been arguing with your own misinterpretation this entire time

Now, can you tell me who the United States Intelligence Community is?

 

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

it's already been proven not to be a hoax, remember the meeting in Trump's property that he lied about, remember him asking Russia to hack Hillary's emails, remember Trump saying he fired Coney over the Russia Investigation, Trump's own son's emails

don't worry, just like Nixon, your man will never go to prison, the "Trump" name will just be a stain on history like the name "Nixon" is

 

Trump can and will tell him to piss off, at that point it will immedietly go to the Supreme Court which will rule in Trump's favor.

 

Then your statement has always been false. Thank you. It's taken a year and a half, but you finally admitted your were wrong.

 

Heh, "remember him asking Russia to hack Hillary's emails" That is the type of comment that outs the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists!

 

I literally explained the same exact thing on page 4 of this thread, and then again on pages 17, 18, 29, and several more since then. No one here ever said that the agencies came to the conclusion independently. You've been arguing with your own misinterpretation this entire time... and the amazing thing about this all is in arguing that you did not misinterpret, you intentionally make further misinterpretations. It's illogical.. it would be like if someone called you a "crybaby" and then in an attempt to prove that person wrong you started crying.. it doesn't help your argument at all

 

yes, he did that publicly, just like he publicly said he fired Comey over that Russia thing

 

The upshot is that I was right all along. Even your typical left wing sources like The Intercept agree:

"The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all “17 intelligence agencies” agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: “The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”"

 

You're confusing the USIC's October 2016 joint statement with the 2017 assessment. It was the latter assessment that involved 4 agencies, not the October joint statement. Here's the update from the fact check on the latter assessment (note that the latter assessment had not begun until months after the October statement)

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


This was first explained to you in this thread back in June of 2017, to say you have fallen behind in the discussion would be an understatement. I am actually not sure if you are being serious right now, or whether you are genuinely unable to keep up with the discussion. You say that the upside is you were right all along, and in the sense that you are saying that 17 agencies did not independently came to the conclusion, you are correct. However where you are wrong is in understanding my position, and the position of the fact checkers. If you read the fact check, and you read my posts, they both specificity that 17 agencies did not independently come to a conclusion, but that the head of the Director of National Intelligence spoke on behalf of the USIC(which is a federation of 17 agencies). Somehow you seem to be unable to comprehend this, as you seem to be under the impression that I was previously arguing otherwise, which was never the case. You can go over the posts near the beginning of this thread yourself, I consistently referred to what was explained in the fact check.

The argument you have been making is with your own misinterpretation, you have demonstrated that time and time again.

 

Oh I grant you've mentioned this before, but I'm not confused about the October and the January statements. The reason it's still irrelevant today is that the claim that 17 intelligence agencies, or as you said, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections," was false then and still false now in regards to both statements. All 17 intelligence agencies neither contributed, or stated that.

 

To begin with why would the federal government, which isn't very intelligent, have 17 intelligence agencies to begin with?

To feed more cushy bureaucrats and waste more money.

It's the federal government against the tax paying people.

 

One man's boondoggle is another man's GS-12 position.

 

You say you're not confused, yet you still seem unable to comprehend the Director speaking on behalf of the entire federation in his October statement. You continue to reference the wrong statement, and create arguments against claims that no one made. My advice to you is to stick to the fact checks

 

The issue isn't what the director says or doesn't say, it's what you said: "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections..."

That's simply false and always has been.

 

The quoted post is literally based on what the director said, more importantly, what he said on behalf of the USIC. If you want to argue that the post is meant to suggest that each agency in the USIC independently came to the conclusion, I can tell you as the person who wrote that post, that is not the case. Which is something I have explained from the very beginning, an official statement made on behalf of the USIC is made on behalf of 17 agencies.

 

You said, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections..."

That's simply false. You even acknowledge that your statement is false on it's face, but somehow can't seem to distance yourself from it. It's very odd.