It's not bias, it's pinning the hypothesis on the actor where the evidence points.
There is not evidence pointing that way. Read what I linked the last page.
It's very hilarious to hear you guys call me right wing or that this is right wing when it comes from Assange and left wing people assembling that information.
You just gave me a grand conspiracy about Russia. I am telling you to question the same people that misinformed the public into buying the Iraq War.
There is plenty of evidence that warrants continued investigation about collusion, however, there is more then enough evidence to reasonably conclude Russia is the likely culprit behind numerous hacks during the 2016 election campaign. Which I outlined. Which to be clear the hacking was all that post was referring to.
It seems to me by this particular angle of your response that I bolded, that you are working from that often faulty premise of using cherry picked instances of the past as a shield to grab when you want to hand wave away conclusions you don't like. Sort of like when Climate Change deniers point to that Time article on global cooling as a rationale to never trust the judgement of scientists whenever its convenient. In this case the misinformation leading up to the Iraq War by Bush administration members serves as that shield. If the belief that the government is always lying is your working premise for hand-wavng away all of the IC's assessments, thats a pretty poor one. There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism but thats not how you are operating....
..Since I can't help but continue to mention how you are a person that pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy built around a single FBI source. Who is now begging for high levels of skepticism about FBI and IC trustworthiness.
There is reason to investigate. I don't think collusion will be found. Probably incompetence.
However this:
however, there is more then enough evidence to reasonably conclude Russia is the likely culprit behind numerous hacks during the 2016 election campaign
is wrong. There isn't that sort of evidence. Again. go over what I linked. Check out g-2.space
There is likelihood Russia tried to hack but no evidence they did. The leaks were likely leaks. If they were hacks, they could have been anyone. That's how dumb Podesta's security was.
Read up.
I went over that shit yesterday.....When I saw it posted by the resident conspiracy theorist during my occasional glance over at The_Donald lite that exists as a sub-forum on a local sports message board I check into from time to time.
And it reads just a poorly as your ramblings, with the same logical flaws and propensity to cherry pick and shift your level of trust based on the narrative, so I see the appeal for someone like you....Including an author that is still pushing Seth Rich.
But to summarize:
- The collective assessment of the FBI and the IC that "Russia used disinformation, data thefts, leaks, and social media "trolls" in an effort to give an advantage to Trump over Clinton but did not target or compromise vote tallying."
An assessment that was re-affirmed by Trump administration officials last month.- A broader assessment of Russian sophistication and hacking/cyber techniques and behaviors that predate the incidents in 2016 and follow similar patterns.
- You have Putin's own recent remarks coupled with quite a lot of wink and nodding in internal news coverage. Documented regularly by journalists and watchdog groups.
- You have a set of behavior and targets in America that's pattern mirrors those of numerous other countries that have also been victim. Where their own law enforcement, IC's, and other evidence gatherers have concluded Russia as well. Independent of our influence.
- You also importantly have a Russian motive, domestic policy, and geopolitical strategy that aligns with the pattern of these attacks. That doesn't fit well with other actors.
But again, Seth Rich.
