Intelligence community shared details into investigation of Trump with Hillarys campaign

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

How about a copy of the FISA warrant?

A copy of the FISA warrant?

Is it real because you've seen it with your own eyes, or real because someone else told you it was?

It's real when we see it OR if someone telling the truth tells us it exists.
The latter can not be verified without the former, just like a man on trial for murder will not be convicted on the say so of someone else, without concrete evidence.
Where are you going with this - that we have to believe everything we are told?

But you were lamenting above that dialogue has been reduced to relying on what others tell us ... right?

Now you are telling me that it's okay to rely on what others tell us if it's true? How do you know it's true?

(YOU chose to answer the philosophical question. You can still choose the other topic if you like.)

Re-read my reply. Evidence is still required in order to state a fact of something being real. In this case the actual warrant being produced. It MAY still be real if we're just told about it, but we don't know it for a fact. This is exactly why Mook was engaging in propaganda... stating facts when he does not know something to be true. He does actually back track and admit this later in the interview, though only when called out. Of course, the other scenario is that he has indeed been briefed and seen evidence illegally.

a reply to: UKTruth

Evidence is still required. Check.

Where does the evidence come from unless it is from a) someone else or b) your own perception?

You're okay with evidence coming from other people then, as long as you believe it?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing could be more irrelevant to me than your opinion of US politics! I just sometimes feel the need to come in and correct you when you blatantly lie and skew reality.

Ad Hominems. A sure sign your point was irrelevant.

Not exactly.

Windword isn't really making an argument that is reduced by an ad hominem.

The argument is that Russian involvement in the election has been proven to the satisfaction of the IC.

That argument is self-evident.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If that were truly the case about the IC.






** For some reason the video above is not linking correctly - www.youtube.com... **

a reply to: Xcathdra

Any comments about these amateur videos?

Are they fake news like the other one?

It's customary to offer a summary of the content rather than merely posting videos.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Any comments about these amateur videos?

Are they fake news like the other one?

It's customary to offer a summary of the content rather than merely posting videos.

Its apparent you arent going to be convinced they are real so why should I wast my time trying to convince you Obama broke the law by using intelligence services to spy on a political rival during a Presidential campaign?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Evidence is still required. Check.

Where does the evidence come from unless it is from a) someone else or b) your own perception?

You're okay with evidence coming from other people then, as long as you believe it?

since when are you and the elft concerned with evidence? There is no evidence to show Russia hacked anything in the Us, let alone colluded with Trumps campaign. Even Obamas own DNI said, again, there is nothing.

I guess we need to start saying the Trump White House / Intel services have medium to high confidence he was wiretapped by Obama.. Thats the BS standard they used that you apparently accept.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Evidence is still required. Check.

Where does the evidence come from unless it is from a) someone else or b) your own perception?

You're okay with evidence coming from other people then, as long as you believe it?

since when are you and the elft concerned with evidence? There is no evidence to show Russia hacked anything in the Us, let alone colluded with Trumps campaign. Even Obamas own DNI said, again, there is nothing.

I guess we need to start saying the Trump White House / Intel services have medium to high confidence he was wiretapped by Obama.. Thats the BS standard they used that you apparently accept.

Oh, I'm the left now? This gets more desperate by the minute. The only thing I've ever been concerned with is evidence, and you're either misled or utterly dishonest when you say there is no evidence of Russian hacking (investigation still ongoing) and you're absolutely talking through your hat about Trump's campaign. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt there were connections between four or five members of Trump's team, and every one of them have lied about it. Why are they lying if there's nothing amiss?

Why don't you just go with what the President claimed rather than trying to rephrase it for him ... which was that OBAMA WIRETAPPED HIM.

Whether that can be proven with evidence or not remains to be seen; there has been zero to this moment (which Clapper also said.)

Funny how you pick and choose what you want to believe, isn't it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

There's no reason why you should try to convince me of something you have ZERO evidence for.

The only evidence you've provided is amateurs pretending to be real journalists.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The argument is that Russian involvement in the election has been proven to the satisfaction of the IC.

That argument is self-evident.

One would think, but there are still those whose entire argument revolves around feigning ignorance, trying to take the issue back to square one. Tedious and annoying.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Funny how you pick and choose what you want to believe, isn't it?

The magnitude of that irony is just... wow.

link me to the evidence of Russian hacking please.
Link me to evidence of Russia - Trump collusion please.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Gryphon66

The argument is that Russian involvement in the election has been proven to the satisfaction of the IC.

That argument is self-evident.

One would think, but there are still those whose entire argument revolves around feigning ignorance, trying to take the issue back to square one. Tedious and annoying.

Even with the recent wikileaks dump sowing how the CIA can leave fingerprints of another nation while hacking. You dont think that new info requires a more thorough examination of that "high / medium confidence" statement used to "prove" russia hacked the DNC / elections / this weeks lies by the left?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

There's no reason why you should try to convince me of something you have ZERO evidence for.

The only evidence you've provided is amateurs pretending to be real journalists.

Then refute the videos.

a reply to: Xcathdra

link me to the evidence of Russian hacking please.

Why? You want to double check the USIC's work?

a reply to: Xcathdra

What new information? WikiLeaks and smart TVs? There's nothing there that we didn't already know! Please!

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

There's no reason why you should try to convince me of something you have ZERO evidence for.

The only evidence you've provided is amateurs pretending to be real journalists.

Then refute the videos.

I've refuted the first one you linked. That demonstrated the likely quality of the rest.

You're making the claims by posting videos ... its up to you to back them up.

Forensics 101.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Funny how you pick and choose what you want to believe, isn't it?

The magnitude of that irony is just... wow.

link me to the evidence of Russian hacking please.
Link me to evidence of Russia - Trump collusion please.

It's been done over and over and over.

Believe what you like. I'll keep pointing out your errors.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra

link me to the evidence of Russian hacking please.

Why? You want to double check the USIC's work?

Absolutely - Trust but verify.

Our intelligence community has reached a critical mass with their credibility being shot.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xcathdra

What new information? WikiLeaks and smart TVs? There's nothing there that we didn't already know! Please!

you skipped over the point.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You really dont want to try and lecture me on forensic analysis. Im not making any claims. I posted the videos and people can make up their own minds. From wwhat i have seen / researched im not finding anything false about them / claims made.