(08-19-2020 08:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (08-19-2020 08:05 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: (08-18-2020 02:46 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote: Manaforte colluding with Russian intelligence... nothing to see here.
Goodness. You are broken. Hope it hurts a little.
No, he's spot on...and this report confirms it. The problem, again, is that it's likely not criminal.
(08-19-2020 09:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: (08-19-2020 08:56 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote: Another broken sky screaming soul...
Nobody is screaming, just calmly and rationally pointing out facts. You just choose to ignore them in favor of your team. Sad.
Except they are not quite facts. At best, they are intelligence estimates. And intel calls them "estimates" for a reason.
First, I've always found kind of a poetic justice in that Hillary, as Secretary of State, played fast and loose with information security in a way that would have landed me in Leavenworth for 20-40 had I done what she did, and survived prosecution, but the same inattention to security bit her presidential campaign in the butt.
Beyond that, most of this is still speculative. That's what intel is, high stakes speculation. Other than freak occurrences like Joe Rochefort or Bletchley Park, intel is never more than a best guess based on incomplete information.
Things that haven't been established factually, to the best of my knowledge, are that
- The information was hacked by "the Russians"
- Wikileaks got its information from "the Russians"
- There was any actual "collusion" between the Trump campaign and "the Russians"
- And most of all, that any "collusion" led to any conspiracy, which is actionable legally.
And if it's not criminal (unlike Hillary's server) then why are we still beating the dead horse 4 years later?
This report, like any intel-based analysis, is inherently speculative. I don't know that they have proof for any of their assertions. And without the ability to subpoena records from "the Russians" I don't know any way that they ever will.