Posted: Aug 19, 2020 2:42 pm
by Mike_L
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mike_L wrote:They're still at it, I see... :deadhorse:

You posting this with a link to Putin's mouthpiece :lol:

You need it, SaM... to tell you what your leftist-commie media omits or downplays...

Six big lies you have been told about Russiagate
By Nebojsa Malic, senior writer at RT

Or, if you're too averse to reading, you can read it from Ray McGovern, who worked at the CIA for 27 years...

...most Americans are unaware that the cornerstone of Russiagate, the charge that Russia hacked into the Democratic National Committee computers, has crumbled. Always evidence-impoverished, the accusation has now been shown to be evidence-bereft by the sworn testimony of the technical expert, Shawn Henry, the head of CrowdStrike. This is the cyber-security firm chosen and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC (with Comey’s blessing) to investigate the so-called Russian hack.

Asked on Dec. 5, 2017, behind closed doors by then-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff to provide “the date on which the Russians exfiltrated [hacked] the data from the DNC,” Henry replied, “… there are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case … we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”

It was only under extreme pressure from the acting director of National Intelligence that Schiff, now chair of the House Intelligence Committee, released the transcript of Henry’s Dec. 5, 2017, testimony on May 7. The Democrats knew for more than two years that the Russian hack was a lie but continued telling it.

But now we know. Better late than never? Not really.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest…

If bombshell testimony like that of Henry is not reported by The New York Times or other Establishment media, as has been the case since May 7, who can hear the tree fall — or the bombshell explode? How many Americans know that the White House has been right about at least one thing — that the charge that Russia “hacked the DNC” is not supported by any evidence that can bear close scrutiny?

I suppose it is true that most Americans would prefer not to know that, but you do not need a PhD to understand the inevitable consequences of letting this all go with a “So what?”

If The New York Times is successful in suppressing bombshells like Henry’s testimony, it can suppress anything it deems “not fit to print.”