It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the Steele "dossier" is meaningless

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You consider your response to be logical? The logical conclusion is obviously that things are false until proven otherwise, especially legal matters. I'm not upset by it, just find it very irrational to continually cite the accusations as though they were foregone conclusions, when zero evidence has been released to support that. There hasn't been any evidence released, from anywhere/anyone, and I challenge you to produce any. I'm not talking about more opinions or analyses, but true evidence. Something that would hold up in a criminal proceeding, which rules out hearsay and innuendo. There's either tangible evidence, or you're oblivious to your confirmation bias and believing what best suits your world view.

I must again point out that "collusion" exists only in anti-trust laws, and cooperating with/egging on a non-hostile foreign entity is not a crime - even if it does affect public opinion (and potentially the way in which they vote). I personally would rather have all emails/private communications for all candidates, as more information equates to greater chance of determining how full of #*%& a specific candidate really is (or is not).

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because that is how our justice system works in the United States. You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything else is conjecture and bias-laced opinion, which isn't nearly enough to be stating these claims as though they are concrete facts that have been proven - because they haven't been. No evidence whatsoever supporting that belief has come to light, either.




posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion


They can disagree all they like, but what evidence has been presented? I'm not referencing analyses or opinion, but cold hard evidence that would pass muster in a court of law. There hasn't been any of that, that not one single piece.

Furthermore, how come everyone came out after the election and admitted that the typical act of espionage had no impact on how sovereign individuals cast their vote? Our opinions are being shaped by information constantly, so how is Russian information any worse/more dangerous? It simply isn't.

As I've always said, if leaked information embarrasses someone or damages them politically, they probably deserved to have it leaked. In any case, this process is not helping our relationship with Russia, who has stated repeatedly that they are willing to help the U.S. and her allies fight terrorism around the globe. Russia has been pounding enemies like IS, which shows their goals are aligned with ours. Let us also not forget they stood beside American soldiers in WWII to fight against the spread of Nazi fascism. I will never understand the Russia-hate fest.

Russia has even expressed a desire to join the NATO alliance, which would undoubtedly lead to a marked reduction in both nuclear posturing and the number of nuclear arms (which are so expensive to maintain and keep at 24/7/365 high alert). In addition, the potential for a catastrophic miscalculation on behalf of one of the superpowers would be reduced to points we haven't seen since WWII.

Russia is no longer a communist dictatorship - they closely resemble Western democracy, capitalism. Many are orthodox Christians, and have very similar world views and aspirations.

It is so important to remember that FBI is an intelligence agency, making it very likely that their inquiry is a counter-intelligence action and not a criminal investigation. This is supported by the lack of evidence/findings, but I suppose we will find out definitively if the results are ever released (or if they aren't, you can bet its a CI action).

I will continue to believe that people are only guilty once proven guilty by a judge/jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt. I will also respect the fact that you obviously disagree with my point of view (not necessarily that someone is innocent until proven guilty, just my specific analysis). That is OK. And if you do have evidence (or I missed the release of it), I'd love to see it. I say that with sincerity.
edit on 10/8/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Meh. If anything, Putin much prefers Obama to Trump. Obama let Putin rampage all over Syria. Trump not so much, and even attacked SAA a few times including shoot down a Syrian jet, first time in more than 3 years of American jets flying there.



new topics
 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join