So, when you make a point, and then put a link or a video that corroborates that point, that’s not supposed to be considered sourcing or evidence towards your argument? We’re supposed to guess as to what you consider a source for your argument and what’s not?
I’m going to need you to cite an example or two to get an idea of what you’re talking about.
You have very little (if any) evidence that any leaks are coming from the IC.
I cite specific IC leaks in my article.
U.S. officials say Putin helped direct the use of hacked materials
U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Russian President Vladimir Putin became…
Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence
The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism…
US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians
This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before…
Also, there’s a big difference between leaking classified information and non-classified information. There’s been no indication that anything that’s been leaked so far is classified in any way, and anything that’s been intercepted with NSA/CIA methods is going to be classified.
One last point: this is more speculation on my part, but what do you think would happen if nothing leaked, then just one day a year down the road, charges are laid out of nowhere? You don’t think that would cause a lot more chaos and calls of “Fake news” and even calling it a coup? Doesn’t it make sense to pave the way for the really bad stuff by slowly building a case in the media with smaller evidence to make it feel a lot more palatable that there actually is likely to be something nefarious here, before leveling the big charges?
And you aren’t even making an argument as to why it’s not much of an argument.
I laid out very clearly how the NSA leaks, CIA leaks, and FBI surveillance controversies reveal a surveillance network the likes of which mankind has never before known. You’ve simply said matter-of-factly that those surveillance networks can still be outmatched by good old fashioned gumshoe work. Which I guess makes all those countless billions of dollars they spent on the surveillance systems kinda silly.
The fact is, there are limitations on the IC, whether you believe they are all powerful and all knowing or not. They have to be allowed to look at the people. They have to be looking at the right people at the right times. The people in question have to be stupid enough to make it obvious on communications that could be intercepted, etc etc.
And why would the CIA, NSA and FBI be looking at Russian government officials and suspicious presidential campaign activities, right?
In fact, the few IC sources I’ve seen from articles have been from other countries IC’s, saying they were tipping off the US ,who seemed to be sleeping on the job, to some shady looking things.
The fact that America’s many allies also share intelligence with its IC isn’t making your case against the ubiquitous nature of the surveillance network look any more convincing. All the more reason something would have been found by now.
So your argument is that they all just have a bad memory and the press focuses on things that are newsworthy? Of course it’s not news if they didn’t disclose meetings with foreign nationals if it’s not evidence towards a possible wider issue. Do you know what news is?
You’re making my argument for me. You are acknowledging that if there were other people from other nations who’d been omitted from from disclosures, you wouldn’t have heard about it unless it became swept up in the Russiagate scandal the media is pushing. You do not know whether the Russia exclusions are anything special or if that’s just what happens when you have a massive team of people trying to list countless interactions and they’re just focusing on the Russia exclusions because it fits a narrative. You are taking it on pure faith that the latter is not the case.
So, an actual record of a meeting (along with all the emails about it ) with Russians because they said they had dirt on Hillary is on the same level as “Seth Rich was murdered for being the real WikiLeaks leaker because we say so”. Okay.
So, an actual recording of Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh saying he knows for a fact that Seth Rich was in contact with WikiLeaks is the same as a Trump insider doing essentially the same thing as the Clinton insiders who commissioned the Steele dossier? Okay.
For the record, I don’t “believe” anything. I think there’s been enough circumstantial evidence come out that it certainly looks like something shady may have happened and it’s worth looking into it, so I’m glad Mueller is. If Mueller doesn’t find any evidence of any real collusion, then I’ll happily accept that. I’m not the one here who is CERTAIN that one thing or another will happen.
And I’m sure you spend just as much energy calling out the people who make claims of certainty about the establishment Russia narrative. Because you don’t “believe” anything.
No, the point is that your article doesn’t amount to much more than what you finger point at them for. It’s mostly talking authoritatively, waving your hands at the details, and making arguments with little to no evidence.
I’m ignoring this because it’s entirely dependent on your personal opinion that I don’t show more evidence for my claims that Russiagaters.