You state that there’s compelling evidence that the alleged DNC hack was merely a leak. If such evidence exists, you’ve failed to provide any of it.
No I haven’t; I provided multiple links in the article that you are commenting on showing the case for the leak theory. Here are two of them:
Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence
In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new…
Russia-gate's Shaky Foundation
Special Report: The Russia-gate hysteria now routinely includes rhetoric about the U.S. being at "war" with nuclear…
You assert that the narrative is riddled with holes, but you really haven’t shown any of them.
Yes I have.
Appeal to consequences: the Russiagate narrative has led to the idea that Americans need to be protected from information, therefore the narrative is false
Yikes! That’s a pretty obnoxious strawman there, dude. One more like that and I’m done with you. I never said the fact that the manufactured Russia panic has led to internet censorship invalidates the narrative, I did it for the reasons I stated at the opening of the essay: to catch the reader up on what’s been happening with Russiagate.
b. Non sequiturs such as: an ad must directly mention the election in order to influence it
I stated a number of reasons why it was ridiculous to claim the FB ads influenced the election; the fact that few of them had anything to do with the election was just one of them.
c. Straw men such as “some parts of the dossier have been verified therefore it must all be true”. Nobody outside of a fringe element of nutjobs would make such an assertion.
I’ve interacted with many such nut jobs. The fact that it doesn’t apply to you personally doesn’t mean it’s not worth pointing out.
Then there are the unsupported assertions like the one about Guccifer 2.0 being an American psyop.
Okay, well that’s just you being lazy and not clicking on the hyperlink provided.
On top of that is the insinuation that the dossier is mostly unverified, therefore it’s mostly false.
Ooh, another strawman. I never said or implied that it’s mostly false. I said it’s riddled with errors (because it is) and that it’s mostly unverified, which you yourself are conceding here. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
You never explain why, if the USIC made the whole thing up, there are investigations being undertaken in both houses of Congress and by the DOJ. You’ve told us what Mueller’s job isn’t, but you’ve yet to tell us what it is.
The investigation is premised on claims made by the USIC. If they’re lying, the existence of an investigation wouldn’t disprove that any more than the Iraq invasion proves Saddam had WMDs.
You’ve explained that the Flynn announcement isn’t about a possible plea deal, but you haven’t what it is about. Some pretty sharp legal minds have explained why a plea deal seems like the most likely explanation. Perhaps you can come up with a convincing reason to believe you instead of them.
I never said it wasn’t a plea deal. Re-read what I wrote.