Intelligence community shared details into investigation of Trump with Hillarys campaign

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Homeland Security, representing the USIC, told everyone.

the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement that said,
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
www.politifact.com...

All that confirms is that Hillary said so.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

He should have been clear about what ... that we have been hearing for months that the Russians were surveilled and that produced information on contacts with Trump campaign staff?

Isn't that generally true, even if you dispute the source?

So there's no difference in Robbie Mook saying something about the news and one President accusing another President of crimes?

I confess, that's absurd to me.

Generally true? Now that is absurd.
You have either heard something and are repeating what you heard, in which case the English language is littered with words that can be used to qualify your statement, or you are stating what you know to be true. Mook used the language of the latter, no different to my propaganda example that "Hillary has had many people murdered during her career", or indeed Trump saying that "Obama wire tapped my phones".

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

a reply to: xuenchen

No, the link confirms that Homeland Security released a statement confirming the USIC's stance on the hacking. It confirms that Hillary Clinton was correct.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

No, the link confirms that Homeland Security released a statement confirming the USIC's stance on the hacking. It confirms that Hillary Clinton was correct.

Which we are not currently talking about - which is actually the subject of this thread. Perhaps try a different thread.

a reply to: UKTruth

So you are saying that there have not been reports for months about surveillance of Russians connected to Trump agents?

Yes or no?

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Conspiracy Theory: Clinton Campaign operatives called phone numbers associated with Trump and said they were "Russians". Easy to spoof a phone number and an accent.

I am sure they could have found some Ukrainian operatives to pull that off ...Just thinking of the two Russian guys spoofing McCain lol

a reply to: UKTruth

My comments are relative to the issue. If you have a problem with my posts being off topic, alert a MOD.

I'm well aware of the fact that the Clinton Campaign was aware of Russian hacking from early on. They hired a 3rd party, CrowdStrike, to work with them and the FBI. CrowdStrike, hired by the DNC to investigate, stumbled upon the Trump server. I have no doubt that that information was shared with the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

The fact that the USIC publicly acknowledged
Russian influence is a matter of record.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

How about a copy of the FISA warrant?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

My comments are relative to the issue. If you have a problem with my posts being off topic, alert a MOD.

I'm well aware of the fact that the Clinton Campaign was aware of Russian hacking from early on. They hired a 3rd party, CrowdStrike, to work with them and the FBI. CrowdStrike, hired by the DNC to investigate, stumbled upon the Trump server. I have no doubt that that information was shared with the DNC/Clinton Campaign.

The fact that the USIC publicly acknowledged
Russian influence is a matter of record.

I don't have a problem with you using completely unrelated links to the discussion. Carry on if you like. Just pointing out the irrelevance of your link.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

How about a copy of the FISA warrant?

A copy of the FISA warrant?

Is it real because you've seen it with your own eyes, or real because someone else told you it was?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

How about a copy of the FISA warrant?

A copy of the FISA warrant?

Is it real because you've seen it with your own eyes, or real because someone else told you it was?

It's real when we see it OR if someone telling the truth tells us it exists.
The latter can not be verified without the former, just like a man on trial for murder will not be convicted on the say so of someone else, without concrete evidence.
Where are you going with this - that we have to believe everything we are told?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

No, the link confirms that Homeland Security released a statement confirming the USIC's stance on the hacking. It confirms that Hillary Clinton was correct.

No it doesn't.

It just confirms the rumors and unconfirmed material.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, I got that the first time. You didn't need to come again when I was answering a reply to someone else. Like I said, I understand the dynamics of the discussions, and the USIC community did tell "us" about the Russian connection. It's all part of the same animal that you're trying to distract from by isolation and piecemeal.

I see you! The pieces are coming together to give us a view of the bigger picture being formed. It's just a matter of time, now.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Yeah, I got that the first time. You didn't need to come again when I was answering a reply to someone else. Like I said, I understand the dynamics of the discussions, and the USIC community did tell "us" about the Russian connection. It's all part of the same animal that you're trying to distract from by isolation and piecemeal.

I see you! The pieces are coming together to give us a view of the bigger picture being formed. It's just a matter of time, now.

You originally posted your response to me.
It was irrelevant then and is still irrelevant.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

It's very unfortunate that statements made as fact with no evidence other than someone else saying it has become so prevalent in discourse, particularly political discourse.

Philosophical question: what evidence exists of anything that has not been "said by someone else" aside from direct personal observation?

Is that a serious question?

Sure, go for it.

You sound like you have an easy answer ... if so, you've outdone philosophers over the last 5000 years or so.

Let's hear it.

How about a copy of the FISA warrant?

A copy of the FISA warrant?

Is it real because you've seen it with your own eyes, or real because someone else told you it was?

It's real when we see it OR if someone telling the truth tells us it exists.
The latter can not be verified without the former, just like a man on trial for murder will not be convicted on the say so of someone else, without concrete evidence.
Where are you going with this - that we have to believe everything we are told?

But you were lamenting above that dialogue has been reduced to relying on what others tell us ... right?

Now you are telling me that it's okay to rely on what others tell us if it's true? How do you know it's true?

(YOU chose to answer the philosophical question. You can still choose the other topic if you like.)

a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing could be more irrelevant to me than your opinion of US politics! I just sometimes feel the need to come in and correct you when you blatantly lie and skew reality.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth

Nothing could be more irrelevant to me than your opinion of US politics! I just sometimes feel the need to come in and correct you when you blatantly lie and skew reality.

Ad Hominems. A sure sign your point was irrelevant.