The report they released offered nothing new other than them telling us Russian Times was favorable to Wikileaks and it was a propaganda mouth piece for Russia. Oh wait, we already knew that. That isn't intelligence. It is also ironic since mainstream media was, by and large, a propaganda mouth piece for the DNC. The difference though is we have verifiable proof that MSM was breaking journalistic ethics on multiple fronts to push the narrative of the DNC (not everyone, but many). We still have yet to have any evidence that Russia provided Wikileaks the Podesta emails through a 3rd party (which was changed from them getting it directly from Russia) and the evidence they do have on Russia hacking in to try and influence the election (say outside of Wikileaks) is largely supported by the fact that Russian Times is favorable to Russia. Is this real life? Sorry, I sometimes have to ask because this stuff is so batpoop crazy that it's hard to believe. Their other evidence is IP addresses which 44% were TOR (therefore mean absolutely nothing) and the others they have not directly linked with proof to a specific 3rd party who is tied with Russia. They name fancy bear and someone else who they believe is Russian. The evidence is vague and at the end they say trust us (pretty much). I'm just not sure how you come to a conclusion outside of that unless you treat politics like a religion or unless you truly trust the Government.


The dossier on Trump is even more vague with broad strokes on dates (entire months) and talking points backed up with no detail. I'm actually a little surprised CNN felt they could substantiate this without looking like the most untrusted network on TV. The only conclusion I can draw is they are so in the bag for the DNC they just don't care. It has been quite the show and I'm actually very optimistic about transparency even after the fake news bill was snuck in allowing our government to do what they are accusing Russia.

---