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

"The answer is no it is not an inaccurate comment"

Haha! Hilarious! Actually, yes it is, it's an inaccurate comment. No interpretation involved. As I've already used as an example, it's just as inaccurate as saying that President Trump won all 50 states.

So very inaccurate.

But if you want to stick with this falsehood, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections" then I'm perfectly happy to point it out!

 

That's not an equal comparison at all actually, there were several states that voted for Trump's opposition, in the case of the Director's statement, there was no opposition from any of the agencies that make up the USIC. A more equal comparison would be for you to refer to a time that the president spoke on behalf of the United States.

Once again you are asserting that the comment must mean that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion. I never once described or argued that the 17 agencies independently came to the conclusion, I clarified two months ago that they did not, and that the Director spoke on their behalf.

 

You've brought up the IC being a "federation" multiple times. So it's certainly fair to use another "federation" as an example.

I'm not not arguing any secret meaning of your comment, just what you said, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." The meaning of the statement is pretty unambiguous. Did 17 intelligence agencies say that Russia was attempting to interfere with our election? Yes or no? It's not complicated at all.

 

but again, a more equal comparison would be to refer to another time that the head of a federation spoke on behalf of its members. Regardless, it is good to see you acknowledge the USIC as a federation after previously telling me it was very internet worthy of me to suggest such a thing. Perhaps now you are ready to give an honest answer to the two questions I had for you

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director of National Intelligence speak on behalf of in the October statement?

It's not complicated at all.

There's nothing secret about it, I explained rather plainly what the details were two months ago, but you keep making excuses for why you cannot accept that clarification. To answer your questions, yes they did, but they didn't do so separately or independently. It was the head of the USIC who made a statement on their behalf.

 

Well there you go! You still think "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." That is hilarious! If you still think that, I can't imagine what "details" you could have clarified previously since you still think 17 Intelligence agencies decided Russia hacked the election. No wonder you only obliquely refer to your clarification without ever clarifying it.

As to your questions:

1. Answered long ago in this thread.

2. None. No federation was mentioned.

Question for you: Did all 50 states elect Donald Trump President?

 

Are you denying that the Director made a statement on behalf of the USIC? because that's all I meant in that original comment. I should know, I'm the one who made that comment, and I explained this two months ago but you keep finding excuses for why you cannot accept this clarification.You're now denying that any federation was mentioned in the October statement, when in fact they were mentioned multiple times


"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises"

and then again later in the statement he wrote

"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"

In case you didn't know, the United Stated Intelligence Community is a federation, as described by the DNI's website

"The U.S. Intelligence Community is a federation of executive branch agencies and organizations that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States"

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

We simply cannot make this a rational discussion if you're going to continue doing this. You cannot expect people to take your own comprehensions seriously when you cannot accept basic facts. Look, I totally get the initial misunderstanding, my original post was vague on the details, but once I clarified the first time that the 17 agencies did not independently make the statement, but that the Director spoke on their behalf, that should have been the end of it. Instead you've been making excuse after excuse for why you cannot accept that clarification

Now you're claiming that no federation was mentioned in the October statement.. even though the USIC was mentioned multiple times in the statement, and the head office of the USIC itself defines the USIC as a federation. That's amazing.. I don't think you are an unintelligent person, but I think you draw irrational conclusions when you find the correct answer inconvenient for you.

To answer your question, there were multiple states that voted against Trump. There were no agencies in the USIC who expressively opposed the Director's statement. A more equal comparison would be to find a statement that Trump made on behalf of the United States

 

I'm not denying that the Director made a statement on behalf of the USIC. What I am denying is that your statement, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections," and the multiple other variations of "17 Intelligence Agencies," is factually correct.

That statement is wrong. That is what I've been maintaining for months. You're wrong and since you've double downed on what you believe is the correctness of that statement, you continue to be wrong.

 

Again, you have to understand what was actually meant in that comment regarding 17 agencies. The Director speaking on behalf of the USIC is all I meant, and I explained this two months ago. This discussion should have ended the first time this was clarified

The two questions I asked for you were

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director speak on behalf of in the October statement?

If you can't give an honest answer to these two questions, then you really have to place to be saying that the use of the phrase "17 agencies" is inaccurate.

 

Except that it is only 4 agencies and not one has stated there is any evidence of Trump collusion. The 17 agency talking point is a lie. Fake News.

 

Questions; already answered.

You excuses? Foggier and foggier. This discussion isn't continuing because of the number of agencies in the IC. We've already discussed the numbers if you care to scroll back. And you are in fact wrong for insisting that "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." Sorry but that's simply isn't true.

Although I must admit at some amusement to your continued insistence that wrong is not wrong. I love your "alternative facts!"

 

No, you refused to give an honest answer, you claimed that no federation was mentioned in the October statement(even though a specific federation was mentioned twice). If you can't acknowledge this simple fact then you really have no place saying that the comment was wrong. You can call it alternative facts, but there's a reason why I have fact checkers on my side and you don't.

 

You are amusingly trying to change the subject. I don't recall every expressing an opinion one way or another on whether "federation" is found in the October Statement. That seems so irrelevant that you must be really desperate to try this tact, but search away:

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

The issue is, and always has been the accuracy of the phrase, "17 Intelligence Agencies" such as in your comment "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." Now you can try to pretend that we were discussing some other issue, but this is the issue that I objected to in your statements since they were false, and since we've started it's become clear that not only you are wrong, but you know it!

Heh.

But you are a last worder, so continue with your childish refusal to acknowledge the truth.

 

wait.. so you're trying to claim that no federation was represented in the statement because the word "federation" wasn't specifically used? That's like claiming a statement made on behalf of the United States doesn't represent a country because the word "country" isn't specifically used. It's illogical, the USIC is the federation, and yes they were represented multiple times in the statement.

 

They should be rounded up, blindfolded, and told they are going to be shot by firing squad. Then firing squad shoots blanks. Then remove blindfolds, and say: Bad Democrat, Bad, and then everyone goes to Capital hill cafeteria for free food and lobbyist money to be handed out.

 

You mentioned "federation" being found in the October statement so I invited you to find it for me.

You failed to do so.

Again, we've gone over this. "50 states elected Donald Trump..." is factually inaccurate, even though the United States is a federation. Seriously, I've already debunked this nonsense. Are you going to rehash the same previously debunked arguments over and over just to keep this thread going?

 

lol no, I asked which federation did the Director speak on behalf of in the October statement. I didn't ask if the word "federation" was used, I asked what federation was represented in the statement. You're playing a game of rational gymnastic to justify your dishonest answer. We'll try this again


1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director speak on behalf of in the October statement?

 

Please explain how these questions, which have already been discussed in this thread, have to do with "...17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

 

It is in the answers themselves, if you can answer them honestly. You claim it's not accurate.. well if it's not accurate, then answer these two questions

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director speak on behalf of in the October statement (note, I am asking which federation was represented. I am NOT asking if the word "federation" was used)?

 

You do realize that we've already discussed the federation issue? And you weren't able to respond to my query that, as a federation, it's still inaccurate to say "50 states elected Donald Trump..."

I'm guessing you are running on empty in trying to keep this going.

So, explain what difference the IC being a federation has to do with "...17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

 

We're still discussing it actually, and we are still discussing it because you still aren't addressing your mistake. I never asked you if the word "federation" was specifically used, that was just a lame excuse to avoid answering the question. Once again

1. How many agencies make up the USIC?
2. What federation did the Director speak on behalf of in the October statement?

If you can't answer these two simple questions honestly, then you really have no place saying that the comment is not accurate

 

1. Answered on #723

2. Answered on #727

The fact that you know that I've already answered just means you are trying to stall and delay this as long as possible, because neither issue has anything to do with THE issue of you saying, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

No can you honestly explain why you continue to insist your statement is true even though there is no factual basis for it? Please explain where you got it from that you regard as a font for truth?

 

You're answer in post #727 is not accurate, because the DNI itself defines the USIC as a federation

"The U.S. Intelligence Community is a federation of executive branch agencies and organizations that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States"

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

I know for a fact that you are already aware of this, because I have already explained this to you. Again, if you are unable to give an honest answer to both of those questions, then you really have no place claiming that the statement is inaccurate. The fact of the matter is, as the head of a federation, the Director of National Intelligence is in a position to speak on behalf of the agencies that make up the USIC.

 

Do you think there's a Special Counsel because a Democrat made a charge?

 

Heh, OK change to #729.

So since you acknowledge that we've already discussed this, why do you keep bringing it up over and over? Particularly when it has zero to do with the topic, which is that your statement, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." is totally inaccurate?

Seriously, it has nothing to do with your inaccurate statement.

Can you honestly explain why you continue to insist your statement is true even though there is no factual basis for it? Please explain where you got it from that you regard as a font for truth?

 

The Director of National Intelligence making a public statement on behalf of a federation made up of 17 agencies(the USIC) is completely relevant to the above quote regarding those same exact 17 agencies... the fact that you would argue that this is irrelevant demonstrates how you have repeatedly drawn irrational conclusions.

Yes, contrary to your conclusions, the USIC is indeed a federation
Yes, contrary to your conclusions, the Director of National Intelligence(the head of the USIC) has the authority to speak on behalf of that federation
and Yes, contrary to your conclusions, he (the head of the USIC) absolutely did speak on behalf of the USIC in his October statement

These are basic facts that you have not been able to accept.. if you can't accept these basic facts, then you really are in no position to say that the comment isn't accurate. There's a reason why I have fact checkers to back my argument and you do not, you have demonstrated time and time again that you cannot accept basic facts. You deny that the USIC is a federation, you deny that the head of the USIC made a statement on behalf of said federation, and now you are denying that the head of the USIC making a public statement on behalf of the USIC is irrelevant to the comment regarding those same exact agencies that make up the USIC.