Russia charges four top intelligence officials with treason

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Analysts told The New York Times there could be several reasons the Kremlin would want the information public. If the arrests are indeed tied to the U.S. intelligence report, it would be a tacit acknowledgment Russia successfully meddled in a U.S. presidential election -- a way to take credit and show other foreign governments the Kremlin has the ability to do so again. Analysts also speculated a public treason trial could serve as a venue to air more potentially damaging information gleaned about the United States -- and new President Donald Trump -- without using back channels such as the website WikiLeaks to make it public.

Ok, just put more popcorn on grocery list. Kremlin meddled/warning to Trump to play ball with Russian rules.

This is what is scary about Trump supporting Putin. Both have a clash of civilizations view of Islam. The current executive order plays into the hands of this clash narrative. How long before Trump directly offers US military help to Russia to help with Russia's problem? Will it be willingly, as a result of more Putin flattery, or as a result of blackmail?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Wake up and smell the tea - the UK, not Russia, is messing with American

The same country that just fell in love with it's Brexit?

“Nigel Farage is a hero to those people, and they know about him because they listen to the Breitbart show and go to Breitbart London and to the Breitbart pages and obviously other pages like Drudge and others,” Bannon said, arguing that the mainstream media missed Brexit and Trump’s presidential victory because they think such alternative sources of information are “beneath them.”

If we're going to talk about common denominators

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

You mention US Intelligence officials being 'quoted' twice.
What might their names be?
It is helpful when vetting the source of a quote if a person knows who supposedly said it.

Click the links, I was talking about quotes.

Quotes as in I was quoting the article.

You can quote the article all day, if there is no one cited as having made the statements, there is no substantiation.

Isn't that called cherry picking the facts? All it means is you can't substantiate the claim. What next? Detectives openly investigating a new case are bogus because they won't disclose all the facts they've uncovered before the trial?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: butcherguy

That's your call, write the author and see if you can fish out any info.

Honestly I think we'd all love to get that level of detail rather than having to depend on "inside sources say."

No thanks.
Instead of that, I will regard it as what it is, an article that offers no proof for the author's suppositions.

You are not willing to contact the UPI reporter to substantiate the core materials in the story, yet we're to believe you would bother contacting the actual sources if you had their names?

All sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The analysts also say this. U.S. analysts cautioned it was also possible the FSB was using the existence of a potential leak to the United States as cover to purge itself of members involved in an internal power struggle.

Good point, but that doesn't mean the dossier is true or false either. We will probably have to wait 30 or 40 years before all the testimonies are declassified to know what is really going on here. Maybe Trump IS Putin in disguise! LOL



The whole thing is like a bad spy novel.

originally posted by: Mishmashum

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

You mention US Intelligence officials being 'quoted' twice.
What might their names be?
It is helpful when vetting the source of a quote if a person knows who supposedly said it.

Click the links, I was talking about quotes.

Quotes as in I was quoting the article.

You can quote the article all day, if there is no one cited as having made the statements, there is no substantiation.

Isn't that called cherry picking the facts? All it means is you can't substantiate the claim. What next? Detectives openly investigating a new case are bogus because they won't disclose all the facts they've uncovered before the trial?

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: butcherguy

That's your call, write the author and see if you can fish out any info.

Honestly I think we'd all love to get that level of detail rather than having to depend on "inside sources say."

No thanks.
Instead of that, I will regard it as what it is, an article that offers no proof for the author's suppositions.

You are not willing to contact the UPI reporter to substantiate the core materials in the story, yet we're to believe you would bother contacting the actual sources if you had their names?

All sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Wow.
A reporter pens a story and the sources are not given.
Somehow it is the reader's job to substantiate the story for the reporter?

No.
Until the reporter can show me a reason to believe what they say is true, it is fiction.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't have a problem understanding the word speculation, do you know the meaning of treason?

What other possible link would you have between the assassination of a KGB chief and then the arrest of several agents for treason immediately following a spat with the United States where the entirety of our intelligence apparatus confirmed the DNC was attacked by Russia?

Hm... I just can't figure it out.

There is no evidence that the Russians released the information to Wikileaks or any other organization. There is evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC and also the Republicans. If you read almost all of the articles directly from the agencies, they state that Russia Hacked, none really say they attacked anyone.

I have worked in law enforcement most my life. Breaking and entering, theft, and an established intent to do harm is technically an attack though the specifics of modern cyber crime laws in the United States are beyond my level of expertise. The story leaves a lot to the imagination. The actions look coordinated. The Kremlin is sending a clear message that no one is beyond their reach. People should be careful before drawing conclusions beyond that though.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

And this man hasn't been seen since he was dragged out of a meeting. With a black out bag over his head!

www.usatoday.com...

Thanks for sharing the USA Today link. If you find any sources that give a more precise date for when Sergei Mikhailov and the others were nabbed please share it. I'd like to see if the date coincides with the day that Igor Sechin was found dead.

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't have a problem understanding the word speculation, do you know the meaning of treason?

What other possible link would you have between the assassination of a KGB chief and then the arrest of several agents for treason immediately following a spat with the United States where the entirety of our intelligence apparatus confirmed the DNC was attacked by Russia?

Hm... I just can't figure it out.

Warhawks still parroting the "Russian hacks" lie?

You need some new material.

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: ThingsThatDontMakeSense
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I don't have a problem understanding the word speculation, do you know the meaning of treason?

What other possible link would you have between the assassination of a KGB chief and then the arrest of several agents for treason immediately following a spat with the United States where the entirety of our intelligence apparatus confirmed the DNC was attacked by Russia?

Hm... I just can't figure it out.

Warhawks still parroting the "Russian hacks" lie?

You need some new material.

I didn't realize there was a lie. I seem to remember the head of the DIA saying quite the contrary. You must be getting your facts from, oh I don't know, your ass?

www.dni.gov...
www.nbcnews.com...

Okay, that's enough.

Thread closed.

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ

In response to a polite private message, this thread is reopened.

Let's please be on our best behavior, stay focused on the topic, alert the staff to any problems and resist compounding them by piling on.

As ever and anon, should anyone have any questions or comments about anything I post, please don't hesitate to send me a private message.

Thanks to everyone willing and able to keep things civil.

You're the best.