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.”
Well said.
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.
