233a
Here the report author cites Pence denying that the Trump campaign was involved in releasing emails damaging to HR Clinton's campaign
Think:
Why would any information related to HR Clinton be damaging, if she was on the "up and up"
J. Assange hinted at this in his answers to Hannity of Fox News in one of his interviews.
So the Trump-haters framed the question.
That is very powerful and a Propaganda technique.
Whoever defines the playing field has the advantage.
Think: The Trump opposition defined the "playing field" as "Who stole [hacked] H.R. Clinton's emails?"
There are more relevant questions:
Were her emails in fact private property?
Aren't charities tranparent?
Aren't the activities of the Secretary of State part of th public record?
Why were these emails damaging specifically to H.R. Clinton, rather than say: Heads of State she was still in contact with, etc,or others?
Why does she care?
Of what did they consist?
What did they show?
Despite the denials of Hope Hicks as to the contacts between the "entourage" of the Trump campaign and Russia, the writer of the report believes the "Russian government" on the matter, yet does not give a citation for where the SC got that information.
The SC report cites "the press" in reporting that "U.S. Intelligence Agencies" concluded that Russia interfered with the election in order to
boost" Trump's chances, YET no citation is given for either what Press reports or What U.S. inteligence agencies .
Another question is beggin to be answered:
Why would the SC take the word of a Press report?
[P.s. same B.S. done on 9/11. Only lists of passengers came from press, nothing official, no official airline or government lists]
This despite the President - elect's denial.
Considering the insistnce of the denials, shouldn't they have dug a little farther, to find out who really was promoting the idea, i.e. names.
Also, facts, details?
What was the basis of their source's claims?
Why did they take the Russian government [alleged] as their source?