Alleged Russian Collusion & Interference Into the 2016 Presidential Election

20170709

Subj: Alleged Russian Collusion & Interference Into the 2016 Presidential Election

There are 17 US Intelligence Agencies: CIA FBI NSA DIA NGI NRO CGI BIR FSS OSS CSS IAR ONC CFA DAS MIA SSB. If CIADST is included it would be 18 (However there are 17 distinct budgets for the former). 

Only after HRC lost the election and a concerted effort to refocus attention for the damaging party correspondence & Panetta emails did she begin screaming about the election being stolen. Of course it couldn't have been simply that grass roots America simply said, "No more." And also everyone took the skewed MSM polls tilted toward HRC as gospel.

So now HRC et al are again making talking points that all her loyalists picked up on were these intelligence reports that express the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies reporting ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign. In reality it was only the view of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Summary: HRC et al incorrectly claims these reports shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

On March 5, 2017, James Clapper said, in an interview with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press that, regarding the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, their report did not have evidence of collusion.

On May 14, 2017, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clapper explained more about the state of evidence for or against any collusion, saying he was personally unaware of evidence of collusion but was also unaware of the existence of the formal investigation.

Most, if not all, of this alleged hacking, leaking, disinformation campaign was done during Obama's watch. Of all the insinuations and beliefs the most common adverbs & verbs preceding intelligence thought was the use of; alleged, allegedly, thought to, possibly, believed, as well as the over used word 'consensus.' As in HRC's claim there was a consensus of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies concerning Russia's attempt to supposedly undermine the election. When in actuality there were only three. Surprisingly they are all Democrat loyalists. The timing of this barrage of like talking points and the fact Obama really didn't do anything serious about it is quite telling and significant.

Conclusions at this point:

1) Why didn't Obama take all this supposed pre-election meddling from Russia seriously?

a) Was it because he as well as everyone else believed HRC was a shoe in anyway?

b) If so that would explain why Obama & his half of America decided to make it an issue after they lost the election.

c) Of significant concern is this supposed ability of Russia to hack into US party databases, state voter records & election systems and change the course of elections at will.

I) Didn't we invent the internet? How is it w/17 intelligence agencies and all our supposed counter terrorism computer nerds is this possible?

II) When did this supposedly begin? Where is the evidence? As far as I can tell as long as the Democrats (Obama) were winning it was no big deal.

d) I have read a lot of thoughts from a lot of the intelligence big wigs and again there was very little in the way of definitive s only conjecture.

2) Obama &/or HRC had almost four months to build a substantial case why didn't they?

3) Only after the Democrats lost the election was every angle and perspective scrutinized by the media & politicians. Again only conjecture. We've gone from it's Russia's fault to a conspiracy w/Trump. Again no evidence.

a) After Comey was fired his friend Mueller (a democrat) was assigned as special counsel who in turn is hiring other democrat loyalists. If any thing does exist proving collusion between Trump & Russia they will find it. The fact of the matter remains there is none nor has Trump ever been formally investigated.

I) I believe it should be law that all political correspondence should be available to the public. I've heard a lot about transparency but have not seen it. As a matter of fact what I've witnessed and believe at this time is that it is said but quite the opposite is practiced.

b) One of the big brouhaha's was the hacking into of the DNC data base & specifically Panetta's email. What was forwarded to Wikileaks were these Machiavellian schemes of deception and smoke & mirror plans. Well of course the DNC had a serious pucker-factor & lost their forkin minds! They huddled together real quick & knew they had to refocus the public's attention elsewhere real quick. And so here we are. If the DNC were honest, stratigized above the moral board there would not have been an issue at all. As a matter of fact, if both parties were above board there would be no problem at all with making all political correspondence (National Security Intelligence the exception) truly transparent.  

All input & thoughts are welcome. 

SemperFi bb