BillsFanNC Posted June 6 Author Share Posted June 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 The reason Clapper can still stand behind the letter he signed is clear to anyone who actually read it. The letter says directly, plainly and clearly that... THEY HAD NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that the laptop contents were part of a Russian disinformation operation. Instead they say that their experience tells them that it might be. And that was plenty good enough for Politico and the rest to run with the false headline that the laptop IS Russian disinformation. See how that works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: The reason Clapper can still stand behind the letter he signed is clear to anyone who actually read it. The letter says directly, plainly and clearly that... THEY HAD NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that the laptop contents were part of a Russian disinformation operation. Instead they say that their experience tells them that it might be. And that was plenty good enough for Politico and the rest to run with the false headline that the laptop IS Russian disinformation. See how that works? Of course he did. He's a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Of course he did. He's a clown. Indeed he is. But he and the rest left themselves an out. "The letter clearly said that we had no direct evidence and that we were only going with our experience and intuition that it might be Russian disinformation. It's not our fault that the entire media misled the country by not accurately reporting what we signed our names to...." I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Indeed he is. But he and the rest left themselves an out. "The letter clearly said that we had no direct evidence and that we were only going with our experience and intuition that it might be Russian disinformation. It's not our fault that the entire media misled the country by not accurately reporting what we signed our names to...." Yup. But if they had no evidence, they had no business signing onto a letter that influenced the election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 2 minutes ago, Doc said: Yup. But if they had no evidence, they had no business signing onto a letter that influenced the election. They'll keep on doing it until the IC as we know it is smashed into 1000 pieces. The good thing is that half or more of the country now knows to dismiss reporting based on IC sources immediately without a moments pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 No way. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted September 17 Author Share Posted September 17 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts