3 ms·
> There are Mac equivalents And yet, your citation of Windows software suggests either that your grasp on the facts of the case are shaky, or that you're more
by coolgeek 6y ago
> There are Mac equivalents
And yet, your citation of Windows software suggests either that your grasp on the facts of the case are shaky, or that you're more interested in trying to convince others that this is true, than you are in whether or not it is actually true.
> Ratcliffe is the head of the ODNI, speaking on behalf of the ODNI
You completely ignored the credibility issues I raised - issues that even the Republican majority in the Senate found troubling.
Further, your insistence on inscribing the authority of the ODNI (as an office) on Ratcliffe suggests that you, yourself, think he lacks sufficient credibility on his own. The fact is that there is no ODNI analysis or documentation on this. There is only the assertion of Ratcliffe, himself, who has already blown his credibility defending disinfo from Derkach (who the DoC outed as a high level Russian agent).
I'm not going to respond further on this. But I'll leave you with a quote I found insightful:
> these fake scandals Republicans concoct to smear Democrats work by being too complicated for anyone to follow. Instead, there's a drip-drip-drip of confusing stories filled with buzzwords and noise, all working together to build the illusion of scandal where none exists. The goal is to keep the words "Biden," "Burisma" and "Ukraine" in the headlines so people start to assume there must be something shady going on, even if there's nothing there
https://www.salon.com/2020/10/15/giulianis-latest-bs-ukraine-smear-failed-you-can-thank-the-trump-impeachment-for-that/ https://www.salon.com/2020/10/15/giulianis-latest-bs-ukraine...
- Natsu 6y agoSo you admit that it's not ridiculous to have text messages on one's laptop, good to know. > The fact is that there is no ODNI analysis or documentation on this. Of course not, because there's no intelligence pointing to Russia as the source of this, which kinda undermines your whole conspiracy theory. You do nothing whatsoever to support that with evidence, which is itself an admission that it's bogus. That last quote is basically how the original Russia conspiracy started, BTW. You know that we've untangled the citogenesis a long time ago, right? They bootstrapped the conspiracy with the original FISA warrant against Carter Page (one of our own spies against Russia, who provably worked on an opp against them not too long prior), leaking some things to the media, then using the leaks themselves to bolster their claims for the FISA warrant. But unlike that, which relied on anonymous leaks (since de-anonymized by Strzok & co's text messages), the drip drip drip here is of stuff like Hunter's signature matching the form of the one from the legal papers, having recordings of him calling the repair shop for his laptop, having pictures of him with a meth pipe, etc. But sure, go on and tell us how that compares to the Russian conspiracy's anonymous leaks of unverifiable information.