On 7th October 2016 Director James

On 7th October 2016 Director James Clapper signed off on behalf of US intelligence a statement that spoke of the US Intelligence Community’s “confidence” that the Russian government was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks, and it was publishing these leaks via Wikileaks in order to influence the outcome of the US Presidential election.On 10th October 2016 I published on The Duran an article in which I pointed out that the manipulative language used in this statement in fact proved that US intelligence does not have the evidence to support this claim.

I pointed out that the statement could therefore only be considered a statement of opinion, as opposed to a statement of fact, and I wondered – since it was a statement of opinion published by the US Intelligence Community concerning a criminal matter presumably under investigation by the police – what the relevant police agency – the FBI – thought of it.
Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.
The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author of the statement.
That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the “evidence” upon which US intelligence expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this “evidence”? Was it invited to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the FBI’s exclusive competence?”
Thanks to the firestorm the Democrats have conjured up around FBI Director James Comey, leaks to the media have now provided answers to these questions.

The FBI was indeed invited to co-author the statement. It REFUSED to do so, which is why its name does NOT appear on the statement.

The spin the Democrats are putting behind this refusal is that though FBI Director Comey agreed with the view expressed in the statement – that the Russians were behind the DNC and Podesta leaks – he felt it was too close to the election to say that in a public statement.

The Democrats are trying to claim that this proves that Comey is applying double standards: that he objected to the release of the US Intelligence Community’s 7th October 2016 statement because it was too close to the election, whilst he himself released a few days ago – even closer to the election – his own statement informing Congress of the investigation of the email scandal.

It is possible to say confidently based on information which is already public that this is a total misrepresentation of what happened.As I explained in my article for The Duran of 10th October 2016, US intelligence’s 7th October 2016 statement was a mere statement of opinion published precisely in order to influence the outcome of the Presidential election. Here is what I said about it in my article

“If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian “motivations” apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all?
The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.
To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian ‘dirty tricks’ campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and by Hillary Clinton’s supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin’s candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election.”Given that the 7th October 2016 was a mere statement of opinion intended to influence the outcome of the election – and one which moreover pre empted the outcome of what is almost certainly an ongoing FBI investigation – FBI Director Comey was absolutely right to have nothing to do with it, even if he might personally believe that the opinion expressed in the statement is true.

By contrast the information FBI Director Comey gave in his letter to Congress about the FBI investigation of the emails found in Weiner’s computer, is a statement not of opinion but of fact. To be clear, Comey is not preempting the outcome of this investigation by expressing an opinion about it, he is merely informing Congress of the fact it is taking place.

The two statements are therefore completely different, and the double standard the Democrats claim to find in Comey’s behaviour does not exist.

Результаты (английский) 1:

On 7th October 2016 Director James Told signed off on behalf of US intelligence a statement that spoke of the US Intelligence Community's "confidence" that the Russian government was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks, and it was publishing these leaks via Wikileaks in order to influence the outcome of the US Presidential election. On 10th October 2016 I published on The Duran, an article in which I pointed out that the manipulative language used in this statement in fact proved that US intelligence does not have the evidence to support this claim.I pointed out that the statement could therefore only be considered a statement of opinion, as opposed to a statement of fact, and I wondered-since it was a statement of opinion published by the US Intelligence Community concerning a criminal matter presumably under investigation by the police is what the relevant police agency is the FBI-the thought of it.Moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made about a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.The relevant police agency is presumably the FBI, which significantly is not a co-author of the statement.That in turn begs a host of questions: has the FBI been shown the "evidence" upon which US intelligence expresses its opinion and has made the statement? Has it asked to see this "evidence"? It was invited to co-author the statement? What does the FBI think of the public involvement of US intelligence in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the exclusive competence FBI's? "Thanks to the firestorm the Democrats have conjured up around FBI Director James Comey, leaks to the media have now provided answers to these questions.The FBI was indeed invited to co-author the statement. It REFUSED to do so, which is why its name does NOT appear on the statement.The spin the Democrats are putting behind this refusal is that though FBI Director Comey agreed with the view expressed in the statement-that the Russians were behind the DNC and Podesta leaks-he felt it was too close to the election to say that in a public statement.The Democrats are trying to claim that this proves that Comey is applying double standards: that he objected to the release of the US Intelligence Community's 7th October 2016 statement because it was too close to the election, whilst he himself released a few days ago-even closer to the election-his own statement informing Congress of the investigation of the email scandal.It is possible to say confidently based on information which is already public that this is a total misrepresentation of what happened. As I explained in my article for The Duran of 10th October 2016, US intelligence's 28th October 2016 statement was a mere statement of opinion published precisely in order to influence the outcome of the Presidential election. Here is what I said about it in my article"If the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about Russian" motivations "apparently form a major part, and one which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and not therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all?The short answer is in order to help Hillary Clinton win the US Presidential election.To that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian ' dirty tricks ' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. " Given that the 7th October 2016 was a mere statement of opinion intended to influence the outcome of the election-and one which moreover pre pre-empted the outcome of what is almost certainly an ongoing FBI investigation-FBI Director Comey was absolutely right to have nothing to do with it, even if he might personally believe that the opinion expressed in the statement is true.By contrast the information the FBI Director Comey gave in his letter to Congress about the FBI investigation of the emails found in Weiner's computer is a statement not of opinion but of fact. To be clear, Comey is not preempting the outcome of this investigation by expressing an opinion about it, he is merely informing Congress of the fact it is taking place.The two statements are therefore completely different, and the double standard the Democrats claim to find in Comey's behaviour does not exist.

Результаты (английский) 2:

On 7th October 2016 Director James Clapper signed off on behalf of US intelligence a statement that spoke of the US Intelligence Community's "confidence" that the Russian government was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks, and it was publishing these leaks via Wikileaks in order to influence the outcome of the US Presidential election.On 10th October 2016 Be published on of the I of an article of Duran in the which I of Pointed out That the manipulative language USED in the this in statement the Fact That proved US Intelligence does not have the Evidence to support the this Claim.

I of Pointed out that the statement could therefore only be considered a statement of opinion, as opposed to a statement of fact, and I wondered - since it was a statement of opinion published by the US Intelligence Community concerning a criminal matter presumably under investigation by the police - what the Relevant police agency of a - the the FBI - Thought of IT.
Moreover's since the the DNC hack is a to criminal Offence, IT is a statement the of opinion made about a matter the which is presumably being of Investigated by the police.
of the Relevant police agency of a is presumably the the FBI , the which are significantly is not a a co-author of the statement the.
That in turn begs the host of a Questions: has the the FBI Been Shown the "Evidence" upon the which US Intelligence Expresses its' opinion and has made the statement the? Has it asked to see this "evidence "? Was it invited to co-author the statement? For What does the the FBI of think of the the public Involvement of US Intelligence in a Leagues Domestic to criminal matter the which falls Within the the FBI's exclusive Competence? "
Thanks to the firestorm of the Democrats have conjured up up closeup around the FBI Director by James Comey, leaks to the media have now! Just Provided answers to Questions for These.

of the WAS indeed the FBI Invited to a co-author the statement the. It REFUSED to do SO, the which is why its' name does the NOT Appear on the statement The.

Of The of spin the Democrats are putting behind the this Refusal is That Though the FBI Director Comey Agreed with the the view Expressed in the statement The - That the Russians Were behind the the DNC and Podesta leaks - he Felt IT WAS of too address close e-to the election violence to say the That in a the public statement the.

of the Democrats are Trying to Claim That the this Proves That Comey is Applying the double standards: That he objected to the the release of the US Intelligence the Community's 7Th October 2016 statement the Because IT WAS of too address close e-to the election violence, whilst the he Himself released the a FEW days ago the - is even closer to the election violence - a His own statement the Informing Congress is of the Investigation of the an email Scandal.

It is Possible to say the confidently based on information the which is Already public that this is a total misrepresentation of what happened.As I explained in my article for the Duran of 10th October 2016, US intelligence's 7th October 2016 statement was a mere statement of opinion published precisely in order to influence the outcome of the Presidential election. Here is what I of Said about IT in up my article

"the If the statement The is Merely a statement The of opinion based on inference of the which guesses about Russian" motivations "an Apparently The form a major part, and one's the which Moreover's Concerns a matter the which is or ought to to the BE the are subject of Investigation by the police and not therefore the are subject of the this the sort of the comment, why WAS IT Be published AT all?
of the short? answer is in order to to help of Hillary of Clinton win's the US the Presidential election violence.
the to That end the statement the fulfils to two two Purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage Hillary Clinton's campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a Russian 'dirty tricks' campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by Hillary Clinton's campaign and by Hillary Clinton's supporters in the media that Donald Trump is Putin's candidate and that Putin is trying to help him win the election. "Given that the 7th October 2016 was a mere statement of opinion intended to influence the outcome of the election - and one which moreover pre empted the outcome of what is almost certainly an ongoing FBI investigation - FBI Director Comey was absolutely right to have nothing to do with it, even if he might personally believe Expressed the opinion That in the statement the is to true.

By contrast the information the FBI Director Comey Gave in a His letter-to the Congress is about the FBI Investigation of the of emails found! in Weiner's computer, is not a statement the opinion of But of Fact. The To the BE the clear, Comey is not preempting the Outcome of the this Investigation by Expressing an opinion about IT, he is Merely Informing Congress is of the Fact IT is taking PLACE.

Of The to two two statements are therefore a completely Different, and the the double standard the Democrats Claim to the find in Comey's behaviour does not exist.

Результаты (английский) 3:

on 7th october 2016 director james Clapper signed off on behalf of us intelligence (a statement that spoke of the us intelligence community"s "confidence" that the russian government was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks, and it was publishing these leaks via wikileaks in order to influence the outcome of the us presidential election. on 10th october 2016 i published on the duran an article in which i pointed out that the manipulative language used in this statement in fact was that us intelligence does not have the evidence to support this claim.i pointed out that the statement could therefore only be considered a statement of opinion, as opposed to a statement of fact, and i wondered - since it is a statement of opinion published by the us intelligence community concerning a criminal matter presumably under investigation by the police is what the relevant police agency, the fbi is thought of..moreover since the DNC hack is a criminal offence, it is a statement of opinion made in a matter which is presumably being investigated by the police.the relevant police agency is presumably the fbi, which significantly is the co-author of the statement.that in turn begs a host of questions: has the fbi has been shown the "evidence" upon which the us intelligence expresses its opinion and has made the statement? has it had to see this "evidence"? was it invited to co-author the statement? what does the fbi think of the public involvement of us intelligence in a domestic criminal matter which falls within the fbi"s exclusive competence? "thanks to the firestorm the Democrats have conjured up around fbi director james Comey, leaks to the media have now provided answers to these questions.the fbi was not invited to co-author the statement. it REFUSED to do so, which is why its name does not appear on the statement.the spin of the Democrats are putting behind this refusal is that though the fbi director Comey agreed with the view expressed in the statement is that the government was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks, he felt it was too close to the election to say that in a public statement.the Democrats are trying to claim that this proves that Comey is applying double standards: that he objected to the release of the u.s. intelligence community"s 7th october 2016 statement because it was too close to the election, whilst he himself released a few days ago is even closer to the election is his own statement informing congress of the investigation of the email scandal.it is possible to say confidently based on information which is already public that this is a total misrepresentation of what happened, as i explained in my article for the cause of 10th october 2016, us intelligence"s 7th october 2016 statement was a mere statement of opinion by the can in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election. here is what i said about it in my article"if the statement is merely a statement of opinion based on inference of which guesses about english" motivations "will form a major part, and which moreover concerns a matter which is or ought to be the subject of investigation by the police and is therefore the subject of this sort of comment, why was it published at all?the short answer is in order to help hillary clinton win the us presidential election.to that end the statement fulfils two purposes: firstly, it discredits the content of any leaks that might otherwise damage hillary clinton "s campaign by lending credence to her claim that they are part of a" dirty tricks" campaign against her; and secondly, it lends credence to the claim popularised by hillary clinton"s campaign and by hillary clinton"s supporters in the media that donald trump is putin"s candidate and that putin is trying to help him win the election. "given that the 7th october 2016 was a mere statement of opinion intended to influence the outcome of the election, and one which empted moreover at the outcome of what is not being an ongoing fbi investigation, fbi director Comey was abso lutely right to have nothing to do with it, even if he might personally believe that the opinion expressed in the statement is true.by contrast the information the fbi director Comey gave in his letter to congress about the fbi investigation of the emails found in weiner"s computer, is a statement of opinion but not of fact. to be clear, Comey is not preempting the outcome of this investigation by expressing an opinion about it, he is merely informing congress of the fact it is taking place.the two statements are therefore completely different, and the double standard the Democrats claim to find in Comey"s behaviour does not exist.