When did I say they were not a part of the Intel community?
Ok...now you're arguing semantics. If you somehow thought I meant every single member of every intel department or agency....I think you should be able to understand that I didn't.
Again, the Director of National Intelligence came out within a day and said the laptop was not Russian Intelligence.
Right. That didn't get much traction on the left though...did it?
I would also expect, just as I faced in the military, that most members of the Intelligence Community that work for the government, actually have rules prohibiting them from talking to the press unless specifically told to by superiors.
Oh OK.
Well rules aside...leaks are abound.
Are you saying that the FBI shouldn't prevent the spread of misinformation around elections?
Surely you're not suggesting that the FBI didn't know it was Hunter's laptop after holding it for a year. His password was Hunter02.
A brute force program would open that thing in under 5 minutes.
Sounds exactly how we got into the second war with Iraq, where there was no real examination of Intelligence, we just assumed that Saddam had Chemical Weapons (since those that examined the intelligence actually went against orders and stated the intelligence did not support chemical weapons stockpiles).
Golly...they lied?
They look at things Russia has done in the past. For example, Russia has been known for hacking emails of a person, making a copy, creating new, fake emails. They then "release" all the emails -- possibly by copying the data they stole from the computer to a laptop and giving it to a computer repairman who will release the information from them. And, if you actually read the letter, that is exactly what they say, while acknowledging they cannot confirm that is what happened in this case, since they had not seen the laptop or intelligence.
When this happened in the Hillary Clinton example....did they release "information" as in....facts, truth, reality....or did they modify it and released "disinformation or misinformation" as in lies, falsehoods, or untruths? That's a hacking btw...not a cracked out guy turning in a laptop to a repair shop.
The FBI had this for a year. It could be verified in less than a day. It's really simple....you call up Hunter, or his dad, tell them you got this from a repair shop and ask if it's his.
Done. Mystery solved. You're living in a fantasy land where the FBI don't know the basics of intel verification.
Actually, it does -- as their letter states.
No...it doesn't. Dirt on the political left doesn't equal Russian plot. Use your thinky tool.
That it isn't actually Russian disinformation doesn't change the fact that it appears as if it could be.
It could be people from the future trying to change the past. Why didn't they consider that?
It is much the same as if you go into a bar and sit for a few hours, by yourself, then people finding out about the hours spent there might assume you are drunk. Now, it is possible you didn't drink but it doesn't mean that reasonable people wouldn't assume that you had.
You're in intel? Seriously?
Imagine any sort of verification process and tell me what you'd do next. Pretend it's an election and you don't want to screw up and spread disinformation. How can you verify if person from bar is drunk. Maybe ask the bartender if he drank anything? Talk to him and see if his speech is slurred? Maybe call your peers at the FBI and ask them if he's drunk since he's been in their possession for a year?
Who made that claim -- I've seen no such claim anywhere. And how do you know it didn't happen?
Is this a serious question?
The obvious reason would be there's no way to know what the repairman will do with it. Will he store it? Throw it out? Wipe it and sell it?
Seems like a long shot that he's going to turn it over to the FBI.
Instead, what I've typically seen is that Russia hacked Hunter's laptop while he was at Burisma (and there is some evidence that points to the Russians running intelligence operations at Burisma in that time frame). Then they add the things they want and, when Giuliani is in Ukraine they turn it over to him.
Any evidence any of this happening?
Obviously, we all know it didn't happen...as even the people who lied to you eventually admitted the truth.
But was there any evidence of this bogus story that was floated as an explanation that you bought into?
Your evidence that they've never done something like this?
I've shown above.
I don't think you're showing what you think you did. You showed our intel lies to us. You cited Russian hackers telling the truth lol.
Is CNN part of the Intelligence Community, too? You seem to be trying to further move the goalposts.
1. You said if the media did not mention the lack of evidence of a Russian plot but suggested a Russian plot....they lied. That's an example.
2. I already told you...I looked at the names on the letter. I looked up the first 7-8. All work as paid contributors to left wing outlets. The possibility of there being some accidental miscommunication here is 0. They even debated the proper outlet to send the letter to first...I think they settled on Politico. As a result, Politico printed the story and it's extremely confusing....they say that "based on the evidence, it's likely a Russian plot, but they want to be clear they haven't actually seen evidence of a Russian plot". I'm paraphrasing here but that's the gist. From there, it's clear that only certain sections of the original story are then used in more "reputable" publications...suggesting its a Russian plot.
And keep in mind....since it's not possible that the FBI didn't know the truth, they did nothing to prevent the spread of misinformation, and in reality it appears they helped suppress the truth on social media.
That happened. You can't "if" or "maybe" your way out of it.
What experts? Again, who that was working at the CIA (or the NIA, for that matter) was directly working with media? Or are you claiming that private citizens (those not working in government) aren't allowed to have political opinions and find the drop as an October Surprise highly suspicious?
See above. I didn't bother with the entire list since I didn't come across a single person who didn't already work hand in freaking hand with left wing outlets.
I don't know what you're suggesting here. Someone spending decades in the CIA retires, continues doing intelligence work, and contributes to news outlets isn't an expert in intel?
I'm not saying he isn't allowed to do those things...but for an administration that swears we don't need to ensure election integrity and wants us to trust them to prevent the spread of misinformation around elections....
You're making a lot of excuses for their deliberate spread of misinformation.
Okay, though it seems questionable there is more evidence.
It's not. The Durham report revealed the extent of what they had on Trump before opening a full investigation. They had an unverified rumor from an unknown source, an Australian diplomat, talking about what he overhead secondhand. That's it.
The most basic thing they have on Biden is a highly credible, verified confidential informant (FBI's words,not mine) that they paid 200k to talk about 5 million dollar bribes to Joe and Hunter. This, with no explanation from the FBI has not been investigated....it's not something they will confirm, nor deny, nor answer any questions about.
I mean...seriously...be objective for one second and ask yourself....
Why did FBI director Wray keep his job after Biden took office? Nearly every other important appointment was vacated and Biden's people put in....yet Wray got to stay. A man appointed by, and who worked under Trump, at a very important position. Why keep him?
I'm stating there is no direct evidence of bribery on the laptop.
Oh?
Republicans on Capital Hill have full access to the alleged information that was on the laptop -- it was even put into the Congressional Record by Matt Gates.
No...they don't. They're subpoenas sent for emails that the Biden administration seems reluctant to make available.
Yet, despite this being fully accessible, there is still no real evidence of bribery by Joe Biden.
Other than the verified confidential informant, bank records, sheĺl companies, and a tremendous number of personal loans, and texts from Hunter soliciting bribes....yeah, they have nothing lol.
I'm not even listing everything. It's a lot. It at least merits a serious investigation. That's not happening though...they won't even cut lose a known crook like Menendez. They need the seat.
The best the laptop can do is state that "the big guy" was going to get 10% of a deal that fell through and was to occur at a time when Joe Biden was not serving in any government office. And it is a person that was copied on the email, and allegedly groomed by the Trump campaign at the same time the laptop was released (trying to get the Wall Street Journal to run the article), that claims Joe Biden is "the big guy," while the author of the email states that Joe Biden was not "the big guy" and was never involved in the deal.
The best you can claim about the laptop is that it shows Hunter may have broken some laws, though even then the laptop is not enough, by itself, to try him for any charges.
You're parroting the same narrative your media tells you. I read from any sources, and usually multiple sources. The idea there's no evidence is a flat out lie. I don't know if you've ever been to court....but we'd call this a preponderance of evidence.
Oh, you mean like the various lies about Hillary over the years, including "Benghazi" which resulted in something like seven different Congressional investigations, the last one admitted to having been done solely to hurt Clinton's chances at becoming President?
I argued against those investigations after the second one. It was a clear waste of time. A witch hunt. They didn't have any evidence.
That's not the federal government though....that's Congress.
What about Comey's various lies about what his committee can prove -- the worst being when he didn't attend when Devon Archer testified and then went on the news claiming the things Republicans believed Devon Archer would say, that was the opposite of what Devon Archer actually testified to.
What do you think Devon Archer said?
Enough to clear the Bidens or himself?
Yes, there should be plenty of skepticism -- which makes it interesting that you have zero skepticism about the laptop but seemingly believe it provides "evidence" of Joe Biden's corruption (the only reason why it would make a difference if it was downplayed during the 2020 election).
I've already proven there was a considerable coordinated effort to cover up the laptop. That happened.
Why do that if it's nothing? Go ahead, answer whenever you want. Then I'll be asking why the FBI won't investigate the evidence....when they spent years chasing a rumor.
Because you kept complaining about all the other documents they took, just not the Classified ones. They did it because it is standard when they execute search warrants, not because of any "conspiracy" against Trump -- and nothing to do with Russia.
Continued below...
