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

There should be at least the one Russian and one Democrat and the pub where they 1st met, be held accountable for creating “Trump with Hookers in Moscow” hoax.

They should be either severely shamed for egregious and malicious rumor mongering or be awarded some medal by CNN for extraordinary investigative reporting

 

Just pointing out that "17 different intelligence agencies" didn't make a determination either way. Your argument is the same as saying all 50 states elected Donald Trump President. This was explained to you in the beginning of the thread.

 

if he is not tried and found guilty YES totally should be held accountable... take the costs of all of it directly from the DNC. they take the people who knew it was a hoax and pursued it anyway and lock them up in a supermax. Yes it's that bad of a crime.

 

The problem with that logic is several states voted for Trump's opponent, which isn't comparable to the USIC's joint statement, considering there doesn't exist any formal position of opposition from any of the 17 agencies. A more logical comparison would if a joint statement was made on behalf of the entire United States.

 

It's a pretty good analogy. Most of those agencies had zero input into that determination. So saying "17 agencies" is false on it's face.

 

but if you were to say that all 50 states voted for the president, the obvious rebuttal would be that many states voted against him. In the case of the USIC's joint statement, there are no such examples of any party represented taking an opposing position. Perhaps if there were no opposing stances in both examples, then the scenarios would be more comparable.

 

I didn't say that all 50 states voted for President, that's an analogy to you saying that "We have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections..."

In the case of the USIC's joint statement (the January 2017 one) it specifically said that the participating agencies were "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies."

You've just been wrong consistently.

 

You can bet that if the political roles were reversed, that would be pursued like hounds after the fox.....

 

I find it somewhat amusing that this thread is still alive and relevant.

I also still think that the comment about Crowdstrike during Trump's phone call with Zelensky prompted more red flags than his comment about Biden.

The 17 intelligence agencies all based their conclusions on what Crowdstrike told all of the, now exposed, bad actors at the FBI was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The same Crowdstrike that was found to have gone beyond their FBI database boundaries while functioning as a third party contractor. (May of 2017 FISA court assessment)

Yep, and if the Crowdstrike part of the conversation was reversed as well, the Press would be going ballistic.

 

Charge all the trump conspirators with slander for lying and calling trump a scumbag

but wait.

In order for them to be found guilty of slander trump must prove he is not a scumbag or a liar

 

The thing is, it was never "17 intelligence agencies."

 

I didn't say you said that, what I said was "but if you were to say that all 50 states voted for the president, the obvious rebuttal would be that many states voted against him. In the case of the USIC's joint statement, there are no such examples of any party represented taking an opposing position"

The point being that the analogy you presented isn't a consistent to the scenario with the USIC's joint statement, since there were no agencies to take a formal position against the October statement.

I think we've established already that the January assessment was only made on behalf of the agencies that played an investigative role in the Russian cyber attacks. The October statement however was a joint statement made on behalf of the entire USIC. That's not really something that is up for debate, it is a fact.

 

if someone is being charge with treason basing upon that evidences then a counter charge would become appropriate.

 

Was there ever a charge though? They were basically playing the guilty until proven innocent game.

 

Given that, your statement that "we have 17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections..." is false since as you acknowledge, "17 agencies" were not involved in the January Statement and the October one you've already acknowledged was corrected in most news articles as false.

Thank you.

 

While it is true that the January assessment was released on behalf of the agencies the conducted the investigation only, the October statement was made on behalf of the entire USIC. You don't really have much of an argument if you're trying to claim that it was not made on behalf of the entire USIC

 

I'm not claiming that, I'm claiming that the October statement was not "17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections," as you've been claiming, but two, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

 

yeah, Russian memes didn’t cost Hillary the election. Hillary cost Hillary the election.

 

I'm sensing a contradiction in you saying you are not claiming that the statement wasn't made on behalf of the entire USIC, while simultaneously arguing otherwise.

Was the joint statement made on behalf of the USIC, or just the two agencies?

 

Your claim was that it was done by 17 intelligence agencies. That is the quote of yours I've posted over and over: "17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections."

 

“There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC.”
https://justthenews.com/government/...-crowdstrike-unsure-if-fbi-confirmed-russians

 

It is imperative to understand what was said on behalf of those agencies to know the context of that post. You avoided the question, was the joint statement made on behalf of the USIC, or just the two agencies?

 

I'm talking about the actual English language. Words matter, as does sentence structure. The statement you made, "17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections," was false then and it is false now.

Yet you persist.

 

Was the statement not made on their behalf? Because that's all that was meant in that post. Unless you have a post of me arguing otherwise, you're creating your own narrative of what is being argued

Granted, that specific post doesn't specify that the head of the USIC spoke on behalf of that federation, but it was clarified several times in the following posts that was the case. You just choose not to acknowledge it

 

Is this your way of admitting that "17 different intelligence agencies who are saying that Russia was attempting to interfere with our elections" isn't accurate?