Politics and Religion
First thing
TwoMints
posted
Your first statement isn't even a FACT. Did the FBI analyze the server? Nope. They took the word of a third party. That's hearsay. That's at best circumstantial evidence. However they may know other things not reported. Since then they've admitted there their analysis was faulty. They claimed it was a signature from a certain Russian group but it proved to them that others had that code.
In my mind anyway, it's far more plausible that Wikileaks is right. It was an insider. Not Russia.One major problem however, that he doesn't address.
"They attempted to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections, a fundamental attack on our democracy."
"Beyond investigating how this name was unmasked, we need to know whether the Obama White House was reading political surveilled information about the Trump transition. They have a right to see intel bearing on U.S. national security, not politics."
If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?
Me thinks it will be a long long time before any investigations sort that one out, and much of it may be left to interpretation.
"They attempted to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections, a fundamental attack on our democracy."
"Beyond investigating how this name was unmasked, we need to know whether the Obama White House was reading political surveilled information about the Trump transition. They have a right to see intel bearing on U.S. national security, not politics."
If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?
Me thinks it will be a long long time before any investigations sort that one out, and much of it may be left to interpretation.
If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?
One major problem however, that he doesn't address.
"They attempted to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections, a fundamental attack on our democracy."
"Beyond investigating how this name was unmasked, we need to know whether the Obama White House was reading political surveilled information about the Trump transition. They have a right to see intel bearing on U.S. national security, not politics."
If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?
Me thinks it will be a long long time before any investigations sort that one out, and much of it may be left to interpretation.
"They attempted to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections, a fundamental attack on our democracy."
"Beyond investigating how this name was unmasked, we need to know whether the Obama White House was reading political surveilled information about the Trump transition. They have a right to see intel bearing on U.S. national security, not politics."
If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?
Me thinks it will be a long long time before any investigations sort that one out, and much of it may be left to interpretation.
