EXPANSION OF COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY ADAM ENTOUS AND ELLEN NAKASHIMA IN THE INDEPENDENT
Response to another reader’s comment: “So, if I understand this correctly: The Independent is complaining that the Russians revealed what a US presidential candidate and her support team actually said? This used to be called 'investigative journalism' back in the day.”
And The Independent ignores the mainstream press's relentless, lying attacks on Trump, but of course The Independent was an integral part of that unprecedented onslaught, absolutely devoid of journalistic principles.
It is highly interesting that no one ever challenges the validity of the actual information, challenging only the route by which the public received it. That fact alone is a rather telling indictment of principles and ethics for all concerned in the continuing controversy.
In the end, no matter what the details of how some information moved, the people voted, and Trump won.
Hillary and pathetic Obama just cannot get over the fact.
And they try everything they can to nullify the result, all of their efforts being far-fetched and lacking merit, besides being anti-democratic in intent.
Such high-minded politicians they are. Are we to think an election should be overturned by the unsubstantiated words of one or two appointed bureaucrats? Those offering us the very suggestion look like fools or thugs to everyone who thinks.
Further, we, in fact, have two versions of what FBI has said on the matter. I wouldn't know which to choose, but I suspect the first one – the one saying they saw no evidence - is the accurate one.
After all, the officials at the FBI are all just employees and appointees in the end with no real independence of action, and when the boss says jump, they jump.
Of course, what about the little matter of 15 other American intelligence agencies, none of which sees any evidence for this claim?
The NSA alone would be able to provide the pathways of this supposed transfer of information, but they haven’t said a word. CIA or FBI would only depend on them for basic data, having no parallel capability.
We also have important outside sources telling us that this claim is bogus, including:
So, when something looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it probably is one.
Response to another reader comment: “Wikileaks, RT and Sputnik as your sources - you've got a great sense of humour, I'll give you that.”
They are at least as valid as The Independent, a proven source of heavy bias in the matters of Trump, Hillary, Corbyn, and Brexit.
Proven to anyone who has actually been reading, not cheering blindly.
Moreover, it is usually a sign of intelligence to judge from the contents rather than just the source.