Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid
Politifact (funded by Clinton Crime Family Foundation donor) ^ | July 6, 2017 | Lauren Carroll

Posted on 07/08/2017 1:18:37 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum

President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

(Excerpt) Read more at politifact.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: fakenews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
TRANSLATION: "We only lied about 13 of them."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/12/16/facebook-fact-checker-politifact-funded-by-clinton-foundation-donor/

1 posted on 07/08/2017 1:18:37 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/12/16/facebook-fact-checker-politifact-funded-by-clinton-foundation-donor/


2 posted on 07/08/2017 1:18:53 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Some people consider government to be a necessary evil, others their personal Ponzi scheme.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If it so important then get your Rat party to turn over their servers and let’s find out what really happened.


3 posted on 07/08/2017 1:20:33 PM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

What if the real number is zero? You’d believe it anyway.


4 posted on 07/08/2017 1:22:07 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Apoplectic is where we want them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

My gosh, John Bolton was almost unwatchable on Lou Dobbs last night.

I could not believe it.

Seemed like he was obsessed with leftist talking points.

Did the pod people snatch his body?

He admitted nothing meaningful happened but that it was still a big deal. Lou Dobbs just kept interrupting him because Lou was so stunned, too. You could read Lou’s face.


5 posted on 07/08/2017 1:23:33 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

[If it so important then get your Rat party to turn over their servers and let’s find out what really happened.]

Stop making sense.

Nonetheless, the DNC has stalled long enough for their lackeys to scrub whatever it was they were trying to hide.

Hrrrmpf. Does the NSA still have Hillary’s emails on the cloud backup in Utah as KimDotCom said? Or have they been scrubbed, too?


6 posted on 07/08/2017 1:25:37 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Comey’s guys talked with the guys hired by the DNC. Russian hacking. Case closed. Seriously, they are welcome to keep going with this dead idea.


7 posted on 07/08/2017 1:26:58 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaveFerris

Sometimes these guys have tp spout nonsense (as long as its entertaining nonsense) to keep the “talking head gigs” coming. I know a “talking head” that’s what he says!

again “news shows” are a form of entertainment they only want you to think they are there to inform!

TV, radio even newspaper news is mostly entertainment not information.


8 posted on 07/08/2017 1:28:52 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Even if all 17 agencies agreed, and even if all of them actually had expertise and responsibility in the relevant areas (which almost none of them did,) they still have no evidence that can’t easily be forged, misinterpreted or otherwise strongly challenged. One such challenge is that they aren’t even willing to show what they claim to have. “No show” means it’s not admissable.

And there is much stronger evidence that the “hacking” was done by DNC insiders and agents of the US deep state.


9 posted on 07/08/2017 1:28:56 PM PDT by sourcery (Non Acquiescit: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reily

I couldn’t believe this was the John Bolton I rooted for, for so long.

I mean, seriously, anyone who is surprised that other nations try to influence other nations has not been paying attention, especially since 1932.

Next, they’re gonna be stunned that nations spy on each other; even allies!

Shocking!


10 posted on 07/08/2017 1:31:23 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Statute? Crickets.


11 posted on 07/08/2017 1:32:41 PM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Based on the publicly disclosed information, I have seen no evidence that the Russian election hack was a sophisticated, government sponsored effort.

All the “attacks” resulted from Russian phishing emails. I get Russian phishing emails almost every week!

The only example of premeditated cleverness was that one of the phishing emails was falsely “sent” from an executive at a company that sells election software and hardware.

This entire hack could have been pulled off by a group of Russian university students.

12 posted on 07/08/2017 1:35:51 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Why the Clintonistas push the Russian Election Myth so obsessively: trying to distract from the Clinton Corruption Facts.


13 posted on 07/08/2017 1:38:42 PM PDT by samtheman (The Germans -- having failed twice -- have finally hit on a way to destroy Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Consider that the Patriot Act with Homeland Security resulting in the megalithic Intelligence monster was first staffed by NeoCons and Globalists was part and parcel of the GWB admin. Along with the introduction of CAIR oversight of sorts which included the FBI.

Then add 8 more years of Obamas depredations against the Constitution and we’ve had 16 years of, at best luke warm patriotism, with a globalist New Word Order foundation and Obama’s treasonous termites introduced into the mix, then the current state of affairs was inevitable.

16 years of stacking the deck means damn near everone in the intel community is a fifth columnist, co-opted , or threatened into silence until pension time, if not terminated through “ your desk is now in the hall” edicts.


14 posted on 07/08/2017 1:39:22 PM PDT by Covenantor (Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern. " Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
[Why the Clintonistas push the Russian Election Myth so obsessively: trying to distract from the Clinton Corruption Facts.]

Absolutely. They know there could be REAL indictments about REAL crimes. So they go for Fake News. Add BamBam and co. to that mix, as well.
15 posted on 07/08/2017 1:40:48 PM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Just exactly what was the conclusion of the “17 or so” agencies? What exactly did they find??


16 posted on 07/08/2017 1:40:51 PM PDT by Principled (OMG I'm so tired of all this winning....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It wasn’t even three agencies. DNI James Clapper chose a panel of intel operatives from 3 agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI.

Don’t forget, Clapper is a known perjurer.

Don’t forget also, they relied upon an assessment provided by Crowdstrike - a company which is funded by tens of millions of dollars from Clinton associates and which retracted major parts of its assessment. These intel operatives never did an independent assessment.


17 posted on 07/08/2017 1:41:58 PM PDT by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

i’m reminded about joe macarthy’s 57 communists. why does the left pillory him and not these guys?


18 posted on 07/08/2017 1:42:36 PM PDT by camle (keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.

The 17 organizations differ on their missions and scope, so they wouldn’t all be expected to contribute to every intelligence assessment, including one of this import.

This is spin. The glass is half-full.

Surely, the point is that 17 agencies didn't say Russia was to blame and that Clinton was wrong when she said it.

If you disagreed with her assessment, you probably pointed out that the Coast Guard, the Energy Department, the DEA, and Geospacial Intelligence probably didn't investigate the matter and conclude that Russia was to blame.

Now Politifact is trying to use the fact that those agencies weren't involved -- something they didn't see fit to mention at the time -- to support their false assessment of the facts.

Shameless.

Politifact Rates Own Fact Check False In Reversal On Russia

19 posted on 07/08/2017 1:47:53 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

What people are missing is that this was under Obama. These people are all political in these agencies. The leftovers from the Obama Admin have been leaking under Trump while working under him!


20 posted on 07/08/2017 1:53:05 PM PDT by TakebackGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson