14-12-2016, 05:28 PM
David Guyatt Wrote:It seems to me Tracy that you're purposely missing the point about Clapper's statement. If US intelligence doesn't know how or when the emails were passed to Wikileaks, then they can't know who passed them either. Ergo, it could have been anybody. No Russian fingerprints involved because no evidence/proof is involved.
I frankly find your additional comments about the various whistleblowers not providing evidence to be bizarre. What are they supposed to do? Provide information that would almost certainly lead to the identity of the leaker/s - just to prove a point? And then walk away and watch him/her/them face the cruel retribution of a failed and vindictive state? Of course they're not going to and I'm really flabbergasted that you are arguing for that to happen.
Besides that, it has been a feature of American law since its beginning that it is the accuser who has to evidence their allegations against the accused - not the other way around. But you're suggesting that the US has now we've reached that stage of their decline where the accused must evidence their innocence against unsubstantiated and unproven allegations. Really?
Meanwhile, isn't it a great pity that our elite, their political managers, their politicized military and intelligence chiefs - who after all have clear financial interests in having a permanent Russian bogeyman hanging over America - and their media shills no longer can be bothered with evidencing the calumny they call news stories -- all they need do these days is to shout an accusation from their front pages and tens of millions of Americans flock down on their knees wailing and accept their words without hesitation. No critical thinking needed. George Orwell eat your heart out.
And based on this post of yours that's all you have, that's all you're presenting.... the self-serving words of a wholly compromised community. There's not a glimmer of fact involved.
David you do understand that hacking the emails is one process (done by one party), and then the handing off of them to Wikileaks is another process (probably done by another party). There could very well be evidence for the first event, and not for the second.
"Besides that, it has been a feature of American law since its beginning that it is the accuser who has to evidence their allegations against the accused - not the other way around."
Yes, and you're saying that the emails were leaked by a disgruntled insider, yet provide no real evidence to support this. Your post above is filled with a lot of rhetoric and assertions, but I'm still waiting for someone to outline a Deep Politics scenario for all of this that makes any sense at all. You can't just make vague, fuzzy hints about shadowy actors and that's it. Come on, give me something.