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

I'm not the one who insisted that the USIC is not a federation and who persists on being on the opposite side of the fact checkers, you are. No one here is saying that 17 agencies wrote the report, but as the head of the USIC, the Director of National Intelligence speaks on behalf of those agencies. Do you deny it, does the Director not speak on behalf of the other agencies?

 

He 'speaks' on their behalf, but they aren't anymore qualified than you or I to make a pronouncement. IE: The Coast guard has nada to do with the investigation, it wasn't a sea invasion LOL. Instead of inflating the really big number, they should've said "the FBI, CIA, DHS have high confidence in the assessment." And leave it at that.

 

At the time of the October statement it was just DHS who investigated, the CIA and FBI had not yet done an investigation, and although the Coast Guard Intelligence (note, the Coast Guard Intelligence is not the same as the Coast Guard) did not conduct an investigation on Russia's meddling, their jurisdiction includes all ports and coastal areas of the country. It is not uncommon for them to conduct investigations, or co-operate with other agencies who are investigating.

Anyway, in regards to your broader point, I don't necessarily disagree, but this discussion isn't about what the Director of National Intelligence should have done, but rather it is about what he did do. Your argument is reasonable, you are not denying that the USIC is a federation, you are not denying that the Director spoke on behalf of the 17 different agencies that make up that federation in his written statement, you are simply making a case for why you would not give the Director's written statement the significance that he intended. I can respect your argument because you're not putting words in other peoples' mouth, or denying basic facts to make your point, but something you need to understand about why this discussion has gone on for so long is not everybody in this thread holds their arguments to that same standard.

 

C'mon man. I've noted you are a smart guy. Stop quibbling over numbers of intelligence agencies that think the Russians try to interfere with elections. They've been doing it since our country's have been around. (better words escape me). Tell us what you think about the OIG's investigation and what internal abuses will be found. That's vastly more concerning to me than what adversarial powers are attempting to do.

 

I'm still waiting for some evidence that the Trump campaign actually colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election.

Meanwhile, in this long and torrid adventure, we are finding that the DNC and Clinton campaign used Russian fabricated information to try to undermine the 2016 election.

The Democratic Party will probably only take a hit if there are serious indictments leveled against numerous individuals who made it their mission to subvert the rule of law.

While it remains to be seen, there sure is a lot of evidence piling up to be able to put some of these Leftists away for long periods of time.

Oh, and Crowdstrike has now been identified as having illegally had access to 702 information...

 

You actually admit that "No one here is saying that 17 agencies wrote the report," but at the same time also insist that, "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

It's astounding the contradictory thinking you've allowed yourself to be subjected to. That's why I'm still continuing this, because you allow me to highlight this weirdness.

 

It is not a contradiction to say that the head of the USIC speaks on behalf of the 17 agencies, which is probably why you deliberately ignored that part of my post, and continue to ignore that the following statement was made on behalf of the USIC (a federation of 17 different intelligence agencies) by the Director of National Intelligence(the head of said federation).

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations"

Also note that you previously tried to deny that the USIC was a federation in your failed attempt to argue against the notion that the Director spoke on behalf of the 17 different agencies that make up the USIC. Once it was proven to you that the USIC is a self described federation, you resorted to outright ignoring that the Director speaks on behalf of the 17 agencies.

 

I've ignored your "Federation" comments because they were responded to months ago, but because you've no other material you keep rotating them, as if they have any significance to you saying "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

That's just false.

It's perfectly reasonable to say "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that..." but it's not accurate to insist that "17 different intelligence agencies who are saying ..." That part is false. And you've acknowledged previously that it was false, but for some unaccountable reason, still maintain that "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections." Why you want to deliberately support a falsehood I've no idea but as long as it wasn't "17 different intelligence agencies" you're promoting a falsehood.

 

First the whole thing was a hoax...well apparently not since there have been guilty please and indictments.

And oh yea...there were indictments and guilty please by TRUMP CAMPAIGN officials...

So what's next?

 

There's been plenty of evidence, but it's all circumstantial. There's been nothing directly proving collusion.

 

None of the indictments were for collusion with Russia. It was all for lying about meetings with Russian officials and for lying in testimony to congress.

There has been no direct evidence presented that ANY member of the Trump campaign worked with Russian in the hacking of the DNC or clinton campaign servers, or that they had prior knowledge of the attacks. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence, but that isn't enough to get an indictment. A judge would just throw it out.

 

You may want to check the indictments for Gates and Manafort. Gates' was dismissed in a plea deal but that changes nothing

 

The bottom line remains the Trump collusion is BS, and as usual the left wont admit they are wrong.

 

The significance is when the Director says "The USIC is confident" he is referring to a federation of 17 agencies. Again, what you continue to ignore is that the Director speaks on behalf of the 17 agencies. If you read my last post, I said nothing about you ignoring that the USIC is a federation, what I said is you are ignoring that the Director spoke on behalf of the 17 agencies. You've used various methods to avoid acknowledging this simple fact, including denying that the USIC is a federation

 

Why didn't the the Director say, "17 agencies.." then instead of "The USIC is confident?"

Answer: Because one is true and one is false. You are supportive of the false narrative.

 

Why did the Director say the "USIC is confident" instead of saying "DHS is confident"?

Answer: The Director was speaking on behalf of the entire USIC, and not just the agency that conducted the investigation

contrary to what your post suggests, USIC means USIC.. and the USIC is literally a federation of 17 different agencies.

 

I think the intelligence services, if there is a hoax. But I doubt there is.

 

Yet you still say 17 intelligence agencies instead of "USIC."

Weird.

 

The term "USIC" is interchangeable to that specific use of phrase. The use of phrasing you are criticizing is an accurate description of who the USIC is.. but if you still believe the phrasing I used is inaccurate, then answer this simple question. Who is the USIC?

 

Can you source where you got that? I mean, How does "17 Intelligence Agencies" really mean 2 or 3? If you want to say the IC, OK, but specifying a specific number of intelligence agencies that agree, when they do not, is fraud on your part.

 

Where did I say that "17 Intelligence Agencies" really means 2 or 3 agencies?. What I said is "the USIC" means "the USIC"

Now can you tell me who the USIC is?

 

Huber has asked for the same FISA documentation that Judge Sullivan is currently reviewing.

In other words, Huber is now looking directly at Mueller's conduct.

So, did Trump find an honest DOJ prosecutor in Utah that will pull apart the Mueller investigation?

 

Heh, can you tell me which conclusion listed all "17 intelligence agencies?"

 

Of course the should.

 

Which conclusion listed the 17 agencies? none, no one ever claimed that the agencies were listed in the statement, but the Director's statement did however speak on behalf of the USIC. Now can you tell me who the USIC is?