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