Okay, now that I've watched the video two serious questions:1) Charlottesville?2) What is the value, in this or any context, of her equivocating to the point of refusing to simply use the names of the parties or candidates involved? What audience is she speaking to who whom she thinks demands this sort of faux probity? Or maybe the question is On whose behalf is she equivocating?
Parsing matters. She said "I haven't seen any evidence" meaning that while she had read the report she had not been shown any of the super secret surveillance video of Putin and Butina actually stuffing ballot boxes in Wisconsin. The reason she hasn't seen that video, and here one must embrace the sobering responsibility of speculating irresponsibly, is that the CIA and NSA are afraid to show it to her because they think she's a Russian asset.
The three agencies tend to gather different kinds of intel from varied sources. It's most likely that the NSA didn't intercept anything as definitive as the FBI and CIA did.
It must be hard being a troll these days. Need one or two here to help balance things out, occasionally. Howzabout something about Hillary, maybe? As if she were to have used a personal cell phone to conduct government bizness? Or, she had Michael Cohen secretly pay off Wiener to keep his mouth shut about banging a certain State Department employee? Or she secretly ate Canadian cheese smuggled across the border from Saskatchewan?
And did the interviewer not think that would be an interesting question to ask?
Okay, now that I've watched the video two serious questions:1) Charlottesville?2) What is the value, in this or any context, of her equivocating to the point of refusing to simply use the names of the parties or candidates involved? What audience is she speaking to who whom she thinks demands this sort of faux probity? Or maybe the question is On whose behalf is she equivocating?
Does Trump's DHS Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, ever talk with Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats?
This administration is a disgrace.
Parsing matters. She said "I haven't seen any evidence" meaning that while she had read the report she had not been shown any of the super secret surveillance video of Putin and Butina actually stuffing ballot boxes in Wisconsin. The reason she hasn't seen that video, and here one must embrace the sobering responsibility of speculating irresponsibly, is that the CIA and NSA are afraid to show it to her because they think she's a Russian asset.
Do...do I *have* to?
I'm wondering how they'll translate "y'all" into Russian...
too soon?
'American strength'? images.mentalfloss.com/site...
Что это за «смазка», о которой вы говорите?- Vlad
Orwell knew it wasn't.
'Outside actors' https://www.politusic.com/w...
'FAKE NEWS! Hey, what's that noise?'
The three agencies tend to gather different kinds of intel from varied sources. It's most likely that the NSA didn't intercept anything as definitive as the FBI and CIA did.
They do seem unusually quite. Not that I mind, of course.
Personally I think she's just trying to talk her way closer to the front of the queue for the guillotine.
It must be hard being a troll these days. Need one or two here to help balance things out, occasionally. Howzabout something about Hillary, maybe? As if she were to have used a personal cell phone to conduct government bizness? Or, she had Michael Cohen secretly pay off Wiener to keep his mouth shut about banging a certain State Department employee? Or she secretly ate Canadian cheese smuggled across the border from Saskatchewan?