|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 4, 2017 23:23:07 GMT
Perhaps you are easily duped?
There is a huge difference between participating in writing the joint findings, and participating in the investigation and analysis.
Not one of you has expressed support for my idea of one or more members of the media, or one or more members of a congressional committee, simply asking the 13 heads of the remaining intelligence agencies about whether their respective agencies participated in the investigation and analysis, and whether their agencies dispute the findings.
It is so obvious, and so simple. But, no one seems to care about learning the truth first-hand.
Why is that?
Unless and until James Clapper recants his assertion of the USIC's findings, or until heads of the 13 intelligence agencies contradict Admiral Clapper, I am on solid ground.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2017 0:12:05 GMT
Unless and until James Clapper recants his assertion of the USIC's findings, or until heads of the 13 intelligence agencies contradict Admiral Clapper, I am on solid ground. Lol. James Clapper has already recanted... You should go back and read my second post on this thread. You are, beyond hopeless.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2017 3:26:34 GMT
I concede. I totally missed that post. I could have saved myself a lot of grief defending my position. Clapper cannot be excused for claiming that the USIC as a whole had agreed to the findings. I had given him a pass on his previous faux pas before a congressional committee. But, this occasion he had the benefit of ample time to review and reflect.
Nevertheless, the findings are conclusive. The assent of the minor intelligence agencies would have added nothing to the credibility of the findings.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 5, 2017 10:36:54 GMT
Unless and until James Clapper recants his assertion of the USIC's findings, or until heads of the 13 intelligence agencies contradict Admiral Clapper, I am on solid ground. Lol. James Clapper has already recanted... You should go back and read my second post on this thread. You are, beyond hopeless. Indeed, further clarification from the DNI in 2017 made it clear there were the only three agencies involved. None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI conducted a review.
Falsely framing the consensus as the result of 17 separate analyses was just as obviously wrong in October as now in June. It’s always been clear that intel agencies run by the Coast Guard or the Department of Energy would not be expected to investigate and weigh in on an election / political hacking attempt.
How many times have lefties thrown that in the face of anyone who dared question their little Russian fairy tale -- "ALL SEVENTEEN AGENCIES AGREED!"
It reminds me of Get Smart:
"17." "How many?" "Well, most." "How many??" "Would you believe... 3?"
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Jul 5, 2017 11:22:55 GMT
Herd will hold it up. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump attempted to interfere with the intelligence agencies and the FBI, but I haven't seen any evidence that he has attempted to do so -- yet. But, why did you just accuse me of supporting an unsubstantiated allegation? You are too funny
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Jul 5, 2017 11:23:32 GMT
Lol. James Clapper has already recanted... You should go back and read my second post on this thread. You are, beyond hopeless. Indeed, further clarification from the DNI in 2017 made it clear there were the only three agencies involved. None of the other agencies overseen by the DNI conducted a review.
Falsely framing the consensus as the result of 17 separate analyses was just as obviously wrong in October as now in June. It’s always been clear that intel agencies run by the Coast Guard or the Department of Energy would not be expected to investigate and weigh in on an election / political hacking attempt.
How many times have lefties thrown that in the face of anyone who dared question their little Russian fairy tale -- "ALL SEVENTEEN AGENCIES AGREED!"
It reminds me of Get Smart:
"17." "How many?" "Well, most." "How many??" "Would you believe... 3?"
I love it.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2017 14:25:37 GMT
I concede. I totally missed that post. I have often wondered whether you actually read my posts? :-) The point here was never a technical one, it's purely political. In a normal world, the assessment of the CIA, DNI, and FBI should be plenty to support a conclusion. However, Hillary thought MORE was needed: hence the invention of "ALL 17 Intelligence Agencies agree". It was BS from the beginning. A normally functioning press would have challenged this point. Instead, they supported it. Politi-fact STILL supports it. If nothing else, this should be eye-opening to you about the biased nature of "Politifact". They are NOT non-partisan. Clapper and Brennan were not trustworthy, IMO... and, neither was Comey. If you distrust those three? It becomes difficult to accept the findings of their report, absent any evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2017 18:37:11 GMT
"Would you believe... 3?" Funny... Those three? No, I don't believe.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2017 19:51:54 GMT
I concede. I totally missed that post. I have often wondered whether you actually read my posts? :-) The point here was never a technical one, it's purely political. In a normal world, the assessment of the CIA, DNI, and FBI should be plenty to support a conclusion. However, Hillary thought MORE was needed: hence the invention of "ALL 17 Intelligence Agencies agree". It was BS from the beginning. A normally functioning press would have challenged this point. Instead, they supported it. Politi-fact STILL supports it. If nothing else, this should be eye-opening to you about the biased nature of "Politifact". They are NOT non-partisan. Clapper and Brennan were not trustworthy, IMO... and, neither was Comey. If you distrust those three? It becomes difficult to accept the findings of their report, absent any evidence. I would have referred you back to the previous post, and ended it there. But, in typical fashion, you added a personal attack. Some free advice: you can't elevate yourself by denigrating others. I did go back to your post, and responded exactly as I should have. I expect that you would have done the same, but would you have responded?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2017 20:09:13 GMT
I have often wondered whether you actually read my posts? :-) The point here was never a technical one, it's purely political. In a normal world, the assessment of the CIA, DNI, and FBI should be plenty to support a conclusion. However, Hillary thought MORE was needed: hence the invention of "ALL 17 Intelligence Agencies agree". It was BS from the beginning. A normally functioning press would have challenged this point. Instead, they supported it. Politi-fact STILL supports it. If nothing else, this should be eye-opening to you about the biased nature of "Politifact". They are NOT non-partisan. Clapper and Brennan were not trustworthy, IMO... and, neither was Comey. If you distrust those three? It becomes difficult to accept the findings of their report, absent any evidence. I would have referred you back to the previous post, and ended it there. But, in typical fashion, you added a personal attack. Some free advice: you can't elevate yourself by denigrating others. I did go back to your post, and responded exactly as I should have. I expect that you would have done the same, but would you have responded? Wait, I missed the part that was a personal attack? It's an "attack" to say "I have often wondered whether you actually ready my posts?" I put a :-) on it, to show I was kidding. Although, I wasn't... I truly HAVE wondered this. That would be easier for me to understand. Anyway, that was certainly not meant as a personal slam. It happens. Especially when posts are being made quickly, or when a page changes. Frankly, I was relieved to know you didn't see it. Couldn't understand why you didn't get the point. I had decided (for about the 100th time) that it was just pointless to discuss anything political with you. My faith WAS restored. Now? I'm wondering again... "Would you have responded" is more of a slam than wondering if someone is reading the posts? Of course I would have. I have conceded issues on this board. It's rare. Cause, I'm usually correct. :-) But, it's happened in the past, and likely will again.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 5, 2017 22:32:36 GMT
Bevo: Wait, I missed the part that was a personal attack? It's an "attack" to say "I have often wondered whether you actually ready my posts?" I put a :-) on it, to show I was kidding. Although, I wasn't... I truly HAVE wondered this. That would be easier for me to understand. FHF: You said, "You are, beyond hopeless." That was a personal attack. Totally unnecessary and totally unwarranted. But, typical. You have launched other personal attacks against me recently, and innumerable personal attacks over time. Do you require reminders?
Bevo: "Would you have responded" is more of a slam than wondering if someone is reading the posts? Of course I would have. I have conceded issues on this board. It's rare. Cause, I'm usually correct. :-) But, it's happened in the past, and likely will again. FHF: Wrong. In fact, there is a very, very recent example of where I provided you with a recent post that proved you wrong. I did not personally attack you, and you did not respond. (Hint: it pertained to fact vs. theory.)
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 5, 2017 23:51:31 GMT
Bevo: Wait, I missed the part that was a personal attack? It's an "attack" to say "I have often wondered whether you actually ready my posts?" I put a :-) on it, to show I was kidding. Although, I wasn't... I truly HAVE wondered this. That would be easier for me to understand. FHF: You said, "You are, beyond hopeless." That was a personal attack. Totally unnecessary and totally unwarranted. But, typical. You have launched other personal attacks against me recently, and innumerable personal attacks over time. Do you require reminders? Bevo: "Would you have responded" is more of a slam than wondering if someone is reading the posts? Of course I would have. I have conceded issues on this board. It's rare. Cause, I'm usually correct. :-) But, it's happened in the past, and likely will again. FHF: Wrong. In fact, there is a very, very recent example of where I provided you with a recent post that proved you wrong. I did not personally attack you, and you did not respond. (Hint: it pertained to fact vs. theory.) Well, there you go. Didn't take as long as I thought. I was wrong about what made you mad. I'm sorry that you took offense to me saying you were "beyond hopeless". I certainly didn't intend that as a slam. I was simply stating my feeling about trying to discuss politics with you. Of course, I wrote that at a time when you HAD NOT READ my post, and we're trying to defend the indefensible. For a brief shining moment, I was encouraged to know you were simply unaware of what Clapper had actually said, under oath. That moment has passed. I'll try, even harder, to avoid such topics with you. It's pointless, and non-conducive to harmony on the board.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Jul 6, 2017 3:12:35 GMT
Bevo: I'm sorry that you took offense to me saying you were "beyond hopeless". I certainly didn't intend that as a slam.
FHF: Fret not. I don't take offense at any of your petty personal attacks. But, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test! Lol. C'est la pomme de terre.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 6, 2017 10:23:00 GMT
"Would you believe... 3?" Funny... Those three? No, I don't believe. LOL, I was only asserting as to quantity.
Nonetheless, the quality of their findings are also very much in doubt as well. It's long on political innuendo and vague generalities, and short on actual evidence.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson exposes the deep, dark side of fake news in her book: “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote,” from Harper Collins Publishers.
Most thinking Americans are pretty suspicious already...this book provides further evidence.
|
|