4 ms·
Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions. If you follow the logic of that narrative you also have t
by cmdrfred 10y ago
Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions. If you follow the logic of that narrative you also have to assume Hillary Clinton[0] and a large segment of the democratic establishment was in on it[1], or worse yet failed to even read the report. Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity?
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage
- woofyman 10y ago>Seems like it would be pretty simple to hold a press conference to clarify those incorrect assertions The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Correct it how?
- cmdrfred 10y ago>The CIA hold a press conference and disclose top secret information? If the elected officials fail the serve the public then yes, they don't have to actually release any top secret data but only have to say "Bush has this wrong, we didn't make the claims he says we have been making" >Then you have to ask if the executive branch has misinterpreted intelligence before and the CIA is unwilling to correct them why would you think this new intelligence has any validity? Instead of sending emails saying "this is correct"[0], say the opposite. [0]http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-donald-trump-russian-hacking/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/16/politics/john-brennan-cia-dona...