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

but again, you were using articles that were discussing the January ICA, and not the October statement. Which gives me the impression that you do not know the difference

"The United States Intelligence Community (IC) is a federation of 16 separate United States government agencies that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities to support the foreign relations and national security of the United States. Member organizations of the IC include intelligence agencies, military intelligence, and civilian intelligence and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The IC is headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who reports to the President of the United States"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community#cite_note-2
https://www.nano.gov//node/24

I don't think you are fit to have this discussion, you seem to not understand the difference between the January ICA and the October statement, and you get basic facts about the USIC wrong.

May I ask you what your role in the intelligence community was?

 

You may not.

But at least now I see where you got the term. I thought it was an odd usage of the term "federation" to refer to a collection of various independent agencies and agencies subordinate to other agencies. In other words, with all due respect to Wikipedia, it's not a federation.

Meanwhile, you are still insisting that "17 Intelligence Agencies" claim Russia "hacked the election." Still wrong by the way.

 

Holy crap... are you being serious right now? Okay, have it your way, here is the DNI's official web site

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/what-is-intelligence

Again man, I really don't think you are fit to be having this discussion right now. You need to educate yourself to the topic and work on your comprehension skills before we can make this a reasonable discussion. Also, you asking me what my role was in the USIC and then mocking me when I give an honest answer is childish, and then you outright refuse to answer me when I ask you the same question.

Don't even bother with another reply if you cannot answer these two simple questions

1. What federation did the Director of National Intelligence speak on behalf of in his October statement?
2. What was your role working for the USIC (if you never worked for them, just say "none")?

 

Well I can't argue that the DNI is actually using that description, "federation" although I can't see how you can have a federation of agencies that work directly for other organization.

1. He didn't mention the federation. He said the US Intelligence Community. But that wasn't the issue. The issue has always been your (and others) use of the term "17 Intelligence Agencies" to describe which agencies participated in that conclusion. For the October statement, it was two. Your terminology is as dumb as the a statement stating, "the position of the US government is Russia hacked the election..." and then you arguing that the Social Security Administration contributed to that since, hey, the Social Security Administration is part of the government.

2. I already told you that you're not getting an answer.[/QUOTE]

 

The USIC is the federation. Once again

Do we have an understanding yet? the USIC is a federation of intelligence agencies. When the Director of National Intelligence makes a statement on behalf of the USIC, he is speaking on behalf of 16 intelligence agencies, plus the DNI. It is understood that you do not like the term "17 agencies" and that's fine, you do not have to like the term, but the issue here is how you've been asserting a meaning to the statement that was never intended to begin with. No one here tried to claim that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion, but that the head of the USIC (the Director of National Intelligence) made a statement on their behalf when he wrote

and

As the head of the USIC he has the authority to make such statements on behalf of the agencies within that federation.

In regards to question #2, I don't believe anyone here is wondering if you have actually worked for the USIC, but it is childish of you to avoid answering that question after mocking me for giving you an honest answer to that very same question. It is apparent that you were looking to take a position of authority in this discussion by asking that question, and are now avoiding answering the question for the sake of not wanting to be on equal grounds with the person you are arguing with.

 

Non-obstructionist, non-seditionist, non-snowflakes and non-internationalist believe there's now enough evidence of conflict of interest with the Special Council that a Special Council needs to be appointed to investigate the Special Council.

These Special Councils should be abolished. History has shown they never stay in track and become nothing more than witch hunts looking for a crime. They do more damage to America than good.

You have a botched third rate burglary that was really just a nothing burger and it becomes a cover up.

You have a Whitewater real estate nothing burger and it becomes all about a blowjob and a cum covered dress.

 

"...but the issue here is how you've been asserting a meaning to the statement that was never intended to begin with. No one here tried to claim that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion..."

Remove the word "independently" and that's exactly what you've argued, which is why I've made the point to note that is inaccurate.

 

I can understand why one would interpret it that way the first time it was posted, but once it was explained what was meant the first time, that should have been the end of it. I explained two months ago that the agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, and since then you have continued to assert your own interpretation to what was meant. You have made this interpretation the basis of your argument, even after it was clarified and explained again and again and again that no one here is arguing that the agencies independently came to the conclusion

All you have done is make excuses for why you can't accept this clarification, you've called the fact check fake news, you've posted articles discussing the January ICA instead of the October statement, and you have outright denied that the USIC is a federation of agencies.

 

If you really believed that you would have agreed that the "17 intelligence agencies" terminology was inaccurate from the get to. Yet you continue to stand by that phrase. Since that is factually inaccurate, I've been calling you on it and you refuse to back down from that term.

 

Again, you are asserting that the term "17 intelligence agencies" must mean that the 17 agencies all independently came to the conclusion, when I already explained that what was mean was the Director of National Intelligence made a statement on behalf of the USIC, which is a federation of 17 agencies. It's understandable why you would object the first time it was posted, because no details were specified in the initial post, but you should have understood what was meant the first time I clarified what the details were.

In your book(not mine) the term "17 agencies" is inaccurate, as if to say the USIC is not made up of 17 agencies, and the head of the USIC cannot make a statement on behalf of that federation. You don't accept my clarification, and then you try rationalizing it all by suggesting that you would know more me because I never worked for the USIC.. even though anyone who reads this conversation can tell you never worked for them either. You get the most basic of details wrong and argue that the USIC is not a federation, and then you say it is very "internet worthy" that I would commit to such an inaccurate statement.

 

You've never made a clarification. You just keep saying that you have.


I'm asserting that you (and many others) have used the term "17 Intelligence Agencies" in referring to ODNI report and it's conclusion that Russia "hacked the election." So if you say: "17 Intelligence agencies agree that Russia hacked the election, " do you think that is a true statement or not?

 

N o F U Z Z.


COMEY: Yes, sir. There should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. The Russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. They did with purpose. They did it with sophistication. They did it with overwhelming technical efforts. It was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government.

There is no fuzz on that. It is a high confidence judgment of the entire intelligence community and the members of this committee have seen the intelligence. It's not a close call. That happened. That's about as unfake as you can possibly get. It is very, very serious, which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. This is about America, not about a particular party.

HEINRICH: That is a hostile act by the Russian government against this country?

COMEY: Yes, sir.

N O - F U Z Z.

 

I did clarify actually, I explained two months ago that the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, but that the Director of National Intelligence made a statement on their behalf.

I clarified, but you are just refusing to accept it, and you keep coming up with the lamest excuses for why you can't accept it. Like incorrectly claiming that the USIC is not a federation, and that the Director of National Intelligence is not in a position to speak on their behalf. They are.. he is.. and he did.

 

That isn't what I asked though. "17 Intelligence agencies agree that Russia hacked the election, " do you think that is a true statement or not?

 

That isn't the language I would use, because 1. Russia hacked our political parties' headquarters and not out voting machines, and 2. The Director's joint statement was more of an assessment.

The quoted statement is not the language I would use, however I cannot rule that there is any disagreement within the USIC regarding the Director's statement considering there are no indications from any of the agencies to suggest that they disagree. The statement isn't wrong, but I feel it would need a greater clarification if it were used. That being said, if someone used that language and then clarified that Russia did not hack our voting machines, and that the 17 agencies didn't independently come to the conclusion, but the Director made a statement on their behalf, I would leave it at that. I would not spend an entire two months repeatedly denying their clarification, and continue arguing with an idea they never supported to begin with.

It's not the language I would use personally, nor is it the language I used.. so I am not sure why you would bring that quote into this discussion

 

Just stop man, I have watched him go in circles forever on this and its just annoying.

No, it was not 17 Agencies, that was a lie.

The end

 

It's not the language you would personally use?

So you have personally used exactly that language. So that's why I think it was a perfectly fair question to ask if you thought the statement that "17 Intelligence agencies agree that Russia hacked the election" was a true statement or not.

So...again, is that a true statement?

 

Oh I know he's a last worder. But the funny thing is that he's known for weeks that he was originally wrong, but he just can't come out and admit it. He's used all kinds of permutations over the past few weeks to re-state, "clarify," and otherwise avoid something that shouldn't have been that big a deal. But he's managed to turn it into a big deal for him. I don't know how many months he can go on like this, and frankly, on previous similar occasions I've just gotten bored and given up with him on other threads and arguments. But this entire "17 intelligence agencies" statement rubbed me the wrong way 9 or 10 months ago when I first started to come across it in the media. Now, he's literally the last Japanese soldier on an island defending it. So I want to see how far he goes.

 

My words

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

your quote

"17 Intelligence agencies agree that Russia hacked the election"

The fact that you would call those two quotes exactly the same language is very telling, you seem to have difficulties comprehending basic differences. Again, the latter is not the language I would use because...

The quote that you brought into the discussion includes specifics that need further clarification. Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections by hacking the headquarters of our political parties, but I wouldn't describe the specifics as the 17 agencies agreeing that Russia had "hacked the election" because it needs to be clarified that the Director's joint statement was an assessment from the USIC that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations"

You're now asking me if the quote you provided is true.. I already answered that in my prior post...

See, this is why I was saying I don't believe you are fit to be having this discussion. You constantly need things explained to you multiple times before you're finally able to understand them, and you keep getting the most basic information wrong without ever acknowledging your mistakes. This whole thing should have ended two months ago when it was explained that the 17 did not independently come to the conclusion, but that the Director of National Intelligence made a joint statement on behalf of the USIC. Instead you find excuses for why you cannot accept this clarification. You use the fact check I provided as the basis for your argument, then you move on and deny using it, before you unwittingly admit to using it. Then you move onto posting articles about the January ICA that don't even mention the October statement. You then claim that the USIC is not a federation of 17 agencies, and then instead of acknowledging your mistakes and moving forward, you diverge the whole thing by bringing in a quote that I never used, and then you inaccurately claim that the quote is exactly the same language that I used.

I can't help but wonder what you will move onto next to justify why you can't accept what was already explained two months ago. I get why you moved on from using the fact check as the basis of your argument once you figured out what it was actually concluding, and I get why you moved on from posting articles discussing the January ICA once you figured out that they were not discussing the October statement.. but why would you deny that the USIC is a federation? and why would you bring in quotes that I never used to argue against what I did say, and then try too claim that they are exactly the same?

Why not base your argument on facts instead? You could maybe find a source dedicated to fact checking that has researched the topic we are discussing, and then share their conclusion with everyone else. That's what I did... two months ago

 

Again with the federation! The United States is a federation, but it would not be accurate to say that all 50 states elected Donald Trump President. In fact, it would be incorrect. Which leads me to...

I was expecting a 10 page thesis on why you couldn't answer my question. You disappoint. OK let's try this again. This is your quote:"We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

So is your quote a true statement?

 

Sure, it would be inaccurate to say that all 50 states voted for him, but it would not be inaccurate to say that the president is in a position to speak on behalf of the 50 states that make up the United States. In fact every president makes statements on behalf of the 50 states. Just as the president is in that position, the Director of National Intelligence is in a position where he can speak on behalf of the agencies that make up the USIC, and he does just that.

As for the quoted comment, it is admittedly a vague statement. It addresses a statement from 17 agencies, but does not specify how that statement was made. It addresses the conclusion that Russia attempted to interfere with our elections, but does not specify in what way they interfered. Which is also why I said the comment "17 Intelligence agencies agree that Russia hacked the election" is not the language I would use. Understand that it was not my intention to be vague for the purpose of misleading. Quite the contrary actually, I wouldn't specify the Director's statement as an agreement between the 17 agencies, because although the the Director was speaking on behalf of the 17 agencies, his statement was based on an assessment, and I also wouldn't describe Russia's attempted interference as them hacking the election, because that often leads people to believe that they hacked our voting machines. It's technically not inaccurate, but it is not the language I would use

In regards to the comment that I did make, I never specified the statement as being done independently by each agency, but if that is how you interpret it, then it is inaccurate. However, if you interpret the comment as it was intended, then it is not inaccurate. Again, my initial post was vague on the details, which is why I clarified what the details were shortly afterward. The discussion should have ended with that clarification, but instead you have repeatedly made excuses for why you cannot accept my clarification... and the strange thing is, you don't seem to be outright denying that my clarification is inaccurate. You've been kind of taking the middle ground, trying to refer to the January ICA instead of the October statement, then denying that the USIC is a federation, and now creating an analogy about how each state did not vote for Trump.. yet you don't seem to be outright denying that the Director of National Intelligence spoke on behalf of the USIC in the October statement.

and the reason why I don't accept that Trump analogy as being an equal comparison is because there were several states that voted for his opposition. In the case of the Director's statement, there was no opposition from any of the intelligence agencies that make up the USIC. The Director made his statement on their behalf, and none of those agencies have objected in any way. As a collective body, the Director's statement represents those 17 agencies, which is basically what I meant in my initial post. The statement represents the collective body of the USIC, but was not done by each agency independently.

 

Let's make a deal:

if the Russian hacking story turns out to be false, Chuck Schumer has to resign.

if its true, Trump has to resign.

sound fair?

 

Amazing! I admit, on some levels, I do admire your commitment to the bit. It's like when Colbert only would publicly act as his character from his Comedy Channel show. Or it's like a professional wresting feud.

So on that, I compliment you.

Now as to your quote, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

Is it accurate or not?

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you need things explained to do multiple times before you're finally able to understand.

The answer is no it is not an inaccurate comment, unless you interpret the comment as me saying that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion. However, I explained two months ago that the 17 agencies did not independently come to the conclusion, so there is no reason for you to interpret my argument that way.

 

Special Counsel Mueller Impanels Washington Grand Jury in Russia Probe
Expansion beyond Flynn grand jury is a sign the investigation in election meddling is ramping up

“This is yet a further sign that there is a long-term, large-scale series of prosecutions being contemplated and being pursued by the special counsel,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. “If there was already a grand jury in Alexandria looking at Flynn, there would be no need to reinvent the wheel for the same guy. This suggests that the investigation is bigger and wider than Flynn, perhaps substantially so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/specia...hington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287