(06-12-2024 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 02:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-06-2024 02:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So Tanq, how about my comments re: Strzok?

I've told you before that the Strzok / Page comments were wholly unacceptable.

But not actionable? I ask because no action was taken, and you seem to be perfectly fine with that.

What action would seem proper? Page and Strzok got their asses canned rather unceremoniously. And properly.

I agree with Senator Grassley's view: "Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion, and appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an 'insurance policy' against a Trump presidency."

The problem with further action is the word 'appear'. Given that, what do you think is the proper action that should have been taken?

There was enough for dismissal, but there doesnt seem to be enough for much else. Again, those are facts available to me. I am more than open to listen to more of those facts. and I am open to what types of action you think are appropriate. that is, given the *facts* and not suppositions.

I sincerely wish there were more facts to buttress some sort of action. But that doesnt seem to be there. That is where the issue for me kind of hits a wall, and not that I am 'okay' with it. My animalistic side says 'go git em'. My rational fact side says 'wish there were more, and more tangible evidence of actual wrongful acts, because the speech that underlies the situation really deserves strong action'. All the while very aware that there doesnt seem to be a criminal action that fits the hard evidence, and all the while wishing that there was more to go forward on.

We have a series of emails expressing a dislike for Trump, and a whiff that they they actually pushed it farther. But I am not one for 'lets prosecute on a mere hint', in all honesty.

(06-12-2024 06:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

What were the illegal means that influenced the results of the election so significantly that it flipped from Trump winning the EC to Trump losing the EC?

Since you asked me I will answer… even though numbers pretty well summed it up when it comes to the votes… but that isn’t what was talking about.

To the votes…. Our system is not designed to catch voter fraud… but more it cannot correct it… because you can’t know how that person voted…. And the 2020 election had more holes than previous elections because of the pandemic.


The 100% convinced has more to do with the Hunter Biden laptop. As I understand it, the government had it for almost a year before the election and knew that it was genuine based on a variety of means… and yet 51 former high ranking intel officers signed a statement using their credentials to factually submit to the voters that this was Russian disinformation… something that these people likely would have known, and/or the intelligence conmunity would have known was banking on their integrity…. While lying to the public.

PedanTanq likes to argue about ‘specifically which code did they violate’ or other such foolishness…. And I can’t tell you and as I never challenged the results, don’t care enough to look it up…. But between that and tens of millions more people voting during a global pandemic than ever before…. And most of them for someone his own party has never supported beyond the single digits, I am convinced. ‘Wrong’ things like this should be illegal if they are not already.

That’s my opinion, not a fact… but someone’s going to have to demonstrate that I’ve got the facts wrong… which certainly could…. Give me different information and I might reach a different conclusion…. and not merely that someone else can draw a different conclusion from the same facts. That’s why they’re called opinions.

Well, you did get some facts wrong…

You misunderstand the letter that was sent. They specifically said it had all the hallmarks of disinformation. They did not, as you purport, say it WAS disinformation. And I assume that they are not as firm in their assessment because, as former intelligence officers, they were not privy to what was on the laptop. So where is the lie? It would only be a lie if they did something different and either argued it was disinformation or if they had all the details as you presume they did.

From the letter:

“ It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US poli<cal scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

Also, the idea that millions more people voted during an election of arguably the most controversial politician to ever be president, is not surprising. I fail to see how an increased voter turnout on both sides of the aisle is even close to potential evidence of voter fraud.

(06-13-2024 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You misunderstand the letter that was sent. They specifically said it had all the hallmarks of disinformation. They did not, as you purport, say it WAS disinformation.

That is pretty much a distinction without a difference. Public (voters') perception of, "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation," is pretty much going to be, "it is Russian disinformation."

And the leftist MSM certainly picked up on calling it "Russian disinformation" based upon that letter.

Those people had one objective--to make Joe Biden president instead of Donald Trump. Truth did not matter to them, as long as they accomplished that objective.

A big difference between you and me. You believe the people who wrote that letter are basically honest and well-intentioned. I don't.

(06-13-2024 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2024 06:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-12-2024 06:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham, you “ 100% believe that illegal means kept him out of office…”?

What were the illegal means that influenced the results of the election so significantly that it flipped from Trump winning the EC to Trump losing the EC?

Since you asked me I will answer… even though numbers pretty well summed it up when it comes to the votes… but that isn’t what was talking about.

To the votes…. Our system is not designed to catch voter fraud… but more it cannot correct it… because you can’t know how that person voted…. And the 2020 election had more holes than previous elections because of the pandemic.


The 100% convinced has more to do with the Hunter Biden laptop. As I understand it, the government had it for almost a year before the election and knew that it was genuine based on a variety of means… and yet 51 former high ranking intel officers signed a statement using their credentials to factually submit to the voters that this was Russian disinformation… something that these people likely would have known, and/or the intelligence conmunity would have known was banking on their integrity…. While lying to the public.

PedanTanq likes to argue about ‘specifically which code did they violate’ or other such foolishness…. And I can’t tell you and as I never challenged the results, don’t care enough to look it up…. But between that and tens of millions more people voting during a global pandemic than ever before…. And most of them for someone his own party has never supported beyond the single digits, I am convinced. ‘Wrong’ things like this should be illegal if they are not already.

That’s my opinion, not a fact… but someone’s going to have to demonstrate that I’ve got the facts wrong… which certainly could…. Give me different information and I might reach a different conclusion…. and not merely that someone else can draw a different conclusion from the same facts. That’s why they’re called opinions.

Well, you did get some facts wrong…

You misunderstand the letter that was sent. They specifically said it had all the hallmarks of disinformation. They did not, as you purport, say it WAS disinformation. And I assume that they are not as firm in their assessment because, as former intelligence officers, they were not privy to what was on the laptop. So where is the lie? It would only be a lie if they did something different and either argued it was disinformation or if they had all the details as you presume they did.

From the letter:

“ It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US poli<cal scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his serving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal aSorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

Also, the idea that millions more people voted during an election of arguably the most controversial politician to ever be president, is not surprising. I fail to see how an increased voter turnout on both sides of the aisle is even close to potential evidence of voter fraud.

Absolutely correct that the 51 "intelligence experts' hedged their words. I have seen one of them since defending his signature on that basis. I think the Biden campaign relied heavily on the "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck" way of spreading untruths. As usual.

And one of the people who declared that it must be a duck, i. e., was Russian disinformation, was Joe Biden, who claimed in his debate with Trump that 50 intelligence experts had declared it to be Russian disinformation.

THERE is the LIE.

(06-13-2024 06:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You misunderstand the letter that was sent. They specifically said it had all the hallmarks of disinformation. They did not, as you purport, say it WAS disinformation.

That is pretty much a distinction without a difference. Public (voters') perception of, "all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation," is pretty much going to be, "it is Russian disinformation."

And the leftist MSM certainly picked up on calling it "Russian disinformation" based upon that letter.

Those people had one objective--to make Joe Biden president instead of Donald Trump. Truth did not matter to them, as long as they accomplished that objective.

A big difference between you and me. You believe the people who wrote that letter are basically honest and well-intentioned. I don't.

It's 100% a distinction with a difference to anyone with 1/4 of a brain.

The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's 100% a distinction with a difference to anyone with 1/4 of a brain.

It's a distinction with a difference to those who are seeking any way possible to exonerate those who signed the letter. Not to anyone else.

(06-13-2024 07:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's 100% a distinction with a difference to anyone with 1/4 of a brain.

It's a distinction with a difference to those who are seeking any way possible to exonerate those who signed the letter. Not to anyone else.

It's wild to think that someone like you willfully ignores the difference between, what are essentially the two statements:

"It might rain today, so consider bringing an umbrella."

"It raining right now so you need to bring an umbrella."

(06-13-2024 07:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

(06-13-2024 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

(06-13-2024 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The only people who don't see a difference are those who don't have a basic grasp of the English language.

90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

Given your sarcastic comment earlier about 1/4 of a brain, it's a bit surprising that you display such a lack of reading comprehension.

Hiding the disclaimer in the fine print does not mean the announcement was not crafted to give a certain impression, nor does it mean the intent was not to deceive. Maybe one needs more than 1/4 brain to figure that one out.

The publicity given the 51 "intelligence experts" from the MSM was not just happenstance. And it completely avoided the clause you wave about as proving their was no intent to deceive.

But, assuming you are right, and the disclaimer was trumpeted loudly in boldface, how do you explain Biden getting it wrong? Was he so easy to dupe, or was he just flay out lying about something that was as plain as the nose on his face? Still waiting for your take on that.

(06-13-2024 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 07:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  90% of Biden voters, then. They damn sure didn't see a difference,. Most of them were very quick to assume the Russia-Trump connection. As did some very smart people. I guess it depends on what you want to believe.

Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

Given your sarcastic comment earlier about 1/4 of a brain, it's a bit surprising that you display such a lack of reading comprehension.

Hiding the disclaimer in the fine print does not mean the announcement was not crafted to give a certain impression, nor does it mean the intent was not to deceive. Maybe one needs more than 1/4 brain to figure that one out.

The publicity given the 51 "intelligence experts" from the MSM was not just happenstance. And it completely avoided the clause you wave about as proving their was no intent to deceive.

But, assuming you are right, and the disclaimer was trumpeted loudly in boldface, how do you explain Biden getting it wrong? Was he so easy to dupe, or was he just flay out lying about something that was as plain as the nose on his face? Still waiting for your take on that.

What fine print are you talking about?

That line is front and center in the letter.

Maybe read the letter yourself?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-...9f9b330000

(06-13-2024 10:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

Given your sarcastic comment earlier about 1/4 of a brain, it's a bit surprising that you display such a lack of reading comprehension.

Hiding the disclaimer in the fine print does not mean the announcement was not crafted to give a certain impression, nor does it mean the intent was not to deceive. Maybe one needs more than 1/4 brain to figure that one out.

The publicity given the 51 "intelligence experts" from the MSM was not just happenstance. And it completely avoided the clause you wave about as proving their was no intent to deceive.

But, assuming you are right, and the disclaimer was trumpeted loudly in boldface, how do you explain Biden getting it wrong? Was he so easy to dupe, or was he just flay out lying about something that was as plain as the nose on his face? Still waiting for your take on that.

What fine print are you talking about?

That line is front and center in the letter.

Maybe read the letter yourself?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-...9f9b330000

In that case, the letter as written says (and I paraphrase) ---

1. Wait, hold your horses!!! This thing has the hallmarks of a Russian plot.
2. Of course, we have zero factual basis to make that comment, havent read any of the letters, and hereby disclaim anything you might read into statement 1.

At its best.

At best it is thus, by definition, rhetorical slop, based on incorrect facts, loudly proclaimed, and at best misleading. You might have noticed recently in these pages that I have an issue with that style of communication.

At worst it was a coordinated and intentional effort to influence public opinion with rhetorical slop, based on incorrect facts, loudly proclaimed, and at best misleading, and with the added level of coordination smacks of intentionally misleading. And again, you might have noticed how I portray the right wing in the present day for that style of action.

With background gleaned into it and what we know presently with hindsight, change misleading into 'containing fundamental and material false assertions'. Age does not help the action.

I think these are fair criticisms. It’s not a fair criticism to incorrectly state that either:

1) those who signed the letter said the laptop was Russian disinformation
2) those who signed the letter effectively hid that they didn’t have evidence of it being Russian disinformation

(06-13-2024 11:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I do think the letter, overall, was misleading. Perhaps highly misleading.

In the view of knowledge later gained, the letter was fundamentally false as to the warning in its content.

I don’t think the letter was intentionally misleading, though. I think it came out of the hullabaloo from Clinton’s email announcement. We have these pre-election surprises now that are essentially damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And I think the impetus was to try and say “hey, this seems really fishy, don’t get too ahead of yourself.”

Now, the intelligence agencies, if they had clear evidence at that point that the laptop was not implicated in Russian disinformation, then they should have come out and weighed in. My guess is that they knew it was Hunter’s but didn’t have sufficient evidence to say definitively it wasn’t being used by foreign actors. Could be wrong there.

I just really hate when these conversations, which are complicated, get overrun with actual falsehoods.

(06-13-2024 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think these are fair criticisms. It’s not a fair criticism to incorrectly state that either:
1) those who signed the letter said the laptop was Russian disinformation
2) those who signed the letter effectively hid that they didn’t have evidence of it being Russian disinformation

Technically, they did not state precisely that it was Russian disinformation. But that is pretty clearly how what they did state was going to be perceived by the general public. They very carefully crafted their wording not to say precisely that but to imply it about as strongly as possible. Career bureaucrats are very good at covering their asses.

I don't know whether they did or did not have any evidence of it's being Russian disinformation. My guess is that they didn't, but they are a bunch of evil bastards who didn't really care whether they had any such evidence or not. They saw a chance to manipulate election results in a direction they wanted, so they made up the statement. Whether it was true--or justifiable--was of no import to them.

(06-13-2024 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [

Well, you did get some facts wrong…

You misunderstand the letter that was sent. They specifically said it had all the hallmarks of disinformation. They did not, as you purport, say it WAS disinformation. And I assume that they are not as firm in their assessment because, as former intelligence officers, they were not privy to what was on the laptop. So where is the lie? It would only be a lie if they did something different and either argued it was disinformation or if they had all the details as you presume they did.

You misunderstand my statement

The veracity of the laptop I am convinced was known by the intelligence community at the time of the letter…. And yet stories about that were censored from the public and people allegedly still in touch with those who knew the truth… put out a letter that they knew and planned to influence the election, with what I consider to be willful ignorance, but while asserting ‘special knowledge’.

Quote:Also, the idea that millions more people voted during an election of arguably the most controversial politician to ever be president, is not surprising. I fail to see how an increased voter turnout on both sides of the aisle is even close to potential evidence of voter fraud.

Because millions more voted for BOTH candidates, during a pandemic… and under significantly relaxed rules as a result.

I find it hard to believe that not only were more people excited by Trump than Obama or Hillary… in addition to all of those who voted ‘against’ him.

It would be one thing if Biden set records but Trump did not.

But again, that wasn’t my contention.

(06-13-2024 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes - it was 100% up to the general public to use that information as they saw fit.

I can understand why someone would criticize these folks for putting the information out there. Same way that many criticized Comey for putting the Clinton email out there. In both instances, the information made public was meant for full disclosure about the potential for an issue to exist, and in both instances, a lot of people spun that information to be more concrete than it was.

I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

Given your sarcastic comment earlier about 1/4 of a brain, it's a bit surprising that you display such a lack of reading comprehension.

Hiding the disclaimer in the fine print does not mean the announcement was not crafted to give a certain impression, nor does it mean the intent was not to deceive. Maybe one needs more than 1/4 brain to figure that one out.

The publicity given the 51 "intelligence experts" from the MSM was not just happenstance. And it completely avoided the clause you wave about as proving their was no intent to deceive.

But, assuming you are right, and the disclaimer was trumpeted loudly in boldface, how do you explain Biden getting it wrong? Was he so easy to dupe, or was he just flay out lying about something that was as plain as the nose on his face? Still waiting for your take on that.

What fine print are you talking about?

That line is front and center in the letter.

Maybe read the letter yourself?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-...9f9b330000

I was speaking rhetorically. next time I will remeber to dumb it down for you.

(06-13-2024 12:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 09:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-13-2024 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the info made public was meant to mislead most of America into believing that the laptop was Russian disinformation, with the connivance and leadership of the Biden campaign and the MSM, and it worked. Piggybacked on top of the Russia-Trump hoax, most people were primed to believe anything about Russia helping Trump.

The wording was very carefully crafted to give the impression of absolute certainty while maintaining plausible deniability, which you are assiduously helping with even now. Certainly nobody on the left back then was saying "Wait! That's not what they said!", unless it was you sounding the call to caution. Were you?

Biden himself made the claim that intelligence experts had declared it be Russian disinformation. Was he duped, or was he lying? Pick one.

Complete BS about the bolded.

This is straight from the letter:

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."

Yeah, that's "absolute certainty" right there.

L-O-L

Given your sarcastic comment earlier about 1/4 of a brain, it's a bit surprising that you display such a lack of reading comprehension.

Hiding the disclaimer in the fine print does not mean the announcement was not crafted to give a certain impression, nor does it mean the intent was not to deceive. Maybe one needs more than 1/4 brain to figure that one out.

The publicity given the 51 "intelligence experts" from the MSM was not just happenstance. And it completely avoided the clause you wave about as proving their was no intent to deceive.

But, assuming you are right, and the disclaimer was trumpeted loudly in boldface, how do you explain Biden getting it wrong? Was he so easy to dupe, or was he just flay out lying about something that was as plain as the nose on his face? Still waiting for your take on that.

What fine print are you talking about?

That line is front and center in the letter.

Maybe read the letter yourself?

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-...9f9b330000

I was speaking rhetorically. next time I will remeber to dumb it down for you.

I actually think you need to smart it up - you're completely backasswards when it comes to what "fine print" means.

A rather simplistic turn of phrase to get wrong. Laughable, really.