Sen Grassley is amazing at oversight. Neat letter. I noticed in that congressional letter that prior campaigns had been looked at by a reporter. Interesting that she is the reporter that broke the December 9 CIA story and also the DNC hack story.
The derogatory on both but only released on one theory was not convincing to me as a hurt-help strategy because of there could be an asymmetric strategy to divide people even further by only releasing on one. If a foe were going to release on one, it seems like most beneficial to release on who you thought would win, but you would definitely hurt the one that probably would lose if they in fact won.
So to me it most reasonably made sense as a hurt-hurt strategy not a hurt-help strategy.
They pay those IC leaders to be able to explain things like this simply to the American public in real time. Frameworks of thinking that aren’t manipulative.
That’s my bottom line. I think people thought what they thought including the IC people, the President, the SSCI, ex officio’s of that committee. It’s just so unfortunate. I hope they work it out and people who were unjustly targeted are made whole and offered an apology by the U.S. government.
I followed this blog for some time, as I believe Russia-gate and its toxic after effects have done serious and long-term damage to our democracy, or former democracy (?). I know you have worked hard to get certain facts and expose them. That said, I find much of what you write inscrutable. I’ve followed this conspiracy closely and try to keep up with recent developments, but I can never seem to understand the relevance of the attribution analysis, DARPA contracts, etc.
Perhaps if you could just explain your theory of the case and how the evidence you’ve collected supports that case it would begin to make sense. Sorry to say this, but after all your hard work I am still lost deep in the weeds of what you are trying to establish regarding the Russia-gate hoax.
UF smoked out Ga Tech researchers contributed to Alfa Bank hoax using developmental Alpha tech that was being sold to DARPA. That’s three strikes against the integrity of anyone who stakes out the arena of enhanced threat attribution as their own. Later, UF smoked out that Mueller brought in Ga Tech. Why? WTF? UF is hyper skeptical of the Guccifer 2 narrative that grounds RussiaGate. If, he succeeds in knocking the above narrative over, the ICA, Mueller, FBI, RussiaGate goes up in smoke. Right or wrong… it’s fun to watch and I pay for the privilege.
Sen Grassley is amazing at oversight. Neat letter. I noticed in that congressional letter that prior campaigns had been looked at by a reporter. Interesting that she is the reporter that broke the December 9 CIA story and also the DNC hack story.
Footnote 7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-intelligence-director-hackers-have-tried-to-spy-on-2016-presidential-campaigns/2016/05/18/2b1745c0-1d0d-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html
I really truly appreciate all the neat pieces of information you uncovered and share. It is so helpful.
The derogatory on both but only released on one theory was not convincing to me as a hurt-help strategy because of there could be an asymmetric strategy to divide people even further by only releasing on one. If a foe were going to release on one, it seems like most beneficial to release on who you thought would win, but you would definitely hurt the one that probably would lose if they in fact won.
So to me it most reasonably made sense as a hurt-hurt strategy not a hurt-help strategy.
They pay those IC leaders to be able to explain things like this simply to the American public in real time. Frameworks of thinking that aren’t manipulative.
That’s my bottom line. I think people thought what they thought including the IC people, the President, the SSCI, ex officio’s of that committee. It’s just so unfortunate. I hope they work it out and people who were unjustly targeted are made whole and offered an apology by the U.S. government.
I just don’t see any evidence for help Trump, certainly not the augmentation 😊. Plus I think my theory is better than theirs 😁
I followed this blog for some time, as I believe Russia-gate and its toxic after effects have done serious and long-term damage to our democracy, or former democracy (?). I know you have worked hard to get certain facts and expose them. That said, I find much of what you write inscrutable. I’ve followed this conspiracy closely and try to keep up with recent developments, but I can never seem to understand the relevance of the attribution analysis, DARPA contracts, etc.
Perhaps if you could just explain your theory of the case and how the evidence you’ve collected supports that case it would begin to make sense. Sorry to say this, but after all your hard work I am still lost deep in the weeds of what you are trying to establish regarding the Russia-gate hoax.
Perhaps the best approach is to read this document. https://www.securityweek.com/dnc-hacker-indictment-lesson-failed-misattribution/
UF smoked out Ga Tech researchers contributed to Alfa Bank hoax using developmental Alpha tech that was being sold to DARPA. That’s three strikes against the integrity of anyone who stakes out the arena of enhanced threat attribution as their own. Later, UF smoked out that Mueller brought in Ga Tech. Why? WTF? UF is hyper skeptical of the Guccifer 2 narrative that grounds RussiaGate. If, he succeeds in knocking the above narrative over, the ICA, Mueller, FBI, RussiaGate goes up in smoke. Right or wrong… it’s fun to watch and I pay for the privilege.