Per an article in the June 29th edition of The Daily Caller: Have we now reached a point where we can predict with a fairly high degree of success whether something is "fake news", based solely on the frequency of the parroting of the "fact"?
I can't count the number of liberal posters parroting "17 agencies" every time hacking is mentioned ... I've always used parenthesis when I cite the intel assessment. Liberals= #SoMisinformed
The warning signs of fake crapola news A third source with direct knowledge Several sources close to the administration tell Those sources said All of the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity One former FBI official and a second government official said confirmed by multiple White House and administration sources. A White House staffer recalled hearing
Read that all 17 signed on to one statement but not another. Not sure but having the big 4 agree is more than enough.
I think all 17 may have had a meeting, and the other 13 had no evidence that contradicted the big 4's determination.
Sorry, but Clapper called "bullshit" on the entire "17 agencies" line of crap. It's fun watching the Russianistas dancing hysterically to try to defend the PROVEN LIES that they once touted as GOSPEL, just a few short days ago. Can't BUY entertainment this good....
Ok, but the parrots kept saying 17. The NYTimes said 17. Now they're saying 4. 17 sounds four times more impressive than 4, at least to the uninformed. (And those are the people these news stories are targeting, yes?) If 17 was the correct number, why did the NYTimes publish a correction?
So when candidate Clinton made the claim that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed "that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election", she was correct? But the assessment indicated that just four agencies agreed with this? I didn't think things could get more confusing; I might have to adjust my thinking...
No, sorry for creating confusion. The quote from the article refers to former candidate Clinton making the claim in May. I should have taken better care with my statement... Former candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim in late May that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed "that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."
Clinton, the Democratic Party, the media and press told that lie tens of thousands of times across the entire election and since.
The fact that MSM wildly exagerated the degree of participation and input the various agencies may have had isn't something that's eluded me. What's missing from this discussion is that ZERO intelligence agencies were given access to the DNC server. Trump is still skeptical of that SINGULAR ASPECT of Russian involvement, SO AM I. Liberals parrot "17" and try and impugn anyone who suggests there are aspects yet UNSUBSTANTIATED. Comey alone accepted Crowdstrikes forensic evaluation of the DNC server. I do not. EVERY probe into email has revealed DNC dishonesty, and incompetence. No reason to expect this isn't more of the same.
They don't mention they got their incorrect Flake News from Susan Rice. BUSTED! Susan Rice Caught in Another Outright Lie – Only 4 – Not 17 – Agencies Agreed on Russia Hacking Assessment (VIDEO) http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...agencies-agreed-on-russia-hacking-assessment/
That seems reasonable. Of course, the right trash media is all aglow over a "retraction". They shouldnt' be. Its pretty clear that the consensus remains. Besides since then a lot more information has been revealed. Recall that this claim was made in October, before Flynn got hired and then fired, back when Trump officials were still meeting regularly with Russian government officials and people close to Putin. It is clear now that right wing media is in rear guard action. Whether all 17 agencies agreed last October, or whether it was only the big four (don't forget the British and several other foreign governments) doesn't matter now. There are 9 investigations and/or grand juries looking at this now. Now we know, that one of Trump's secretive billionaire friends got involved. Whether it was with Trump's knowledge is not know. But only a complete fool would take Trump's word on it (or anything else). But it's time to take a very close look at Robert Mercer.
