5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Ratcliffe has no authority to speak for the FBI. The FBI has not supported what Ratcliffe maintains. It neither confirms not denies. Which is what you'd expect it to do if an investigation were underway.

He is the director of National Intelligence. He is responsible for passing intelligence to the Congress of the USA for briefing. Are you saying he went on national television and told a purposeful lie to deceive the American public? That (1) really there is intelligence that says that Russians are behind this laptop, and he decided not to tell anyone? Or (2) that the info was not passed to him? Or (3) he has the info and purposefully is deceiving? Which of the above is your theory. Come on everyone play along chose your conspiracy theory 1 2 or 3?

I'm going to take a break from this nonsense.  I'll just remind the Trump fans that are desperate for an October surprise of what I posted earlier:   https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1187533-trump-slams-facebook-twitter-for-taking-down-biden-story-in-ny-post/page/17/#elControls_15935953_menu

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The issue is that you claim Ratcliffe doesn't have a sleazy history. The evidence says otherwise.

No it does not. The issue here is that you and others are now attacking John Ratcliffe as being somehow dirty because he simply said that he has no intelligence that says the Russians have anything to do with the Biden laptop. That is the issue.

1 hour ago, Damual Travesty said:

Do not insult me in your posts. I have had enough. The DNI said what he said. The intelligence agencies backed him. No one refuted him. He runs the agency. Do not insult me any further. You have been warned.

From day one of his "presidency" trump has continuously slammed the intelligence community and you base trump supporters have parroted him. Now, suddenly, you listen to them and when this is pointed out you get insulted??

Seems to me you're as thin-skinned as trump.

 

PS. I've been warned?????

6 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

No, it's not, but your diversion should be.

You are not allowed to include statements of political controversy in your signature its in the rules of this board.I know because I know others have had to remove such signatures.

1 minute ago, Damual Travesty said:

He is the director of National Intelligence. He is responsible for passing intelligence to the Congress of the USA for briefing. Are you saying he went on national television and told a purposeful lie to deceive the American public? That (1) really there is intelligence that says that Russians are behind this laptop, and he decided not to tell anyone? Or (2) that the info was not passed to him? Or (3) he has the info and purposefully is deceiving? Which of the above is your theory. Come on everyone play along chose your conspiracy theory 1 2 or 3?

As far as is known, only the FBI is investigating this. The FBI has not backed him nor contradicted him. He didn't say he consulted with the FBI. His statement was actually very minimal. And given how sleazy his behavior in office has been, I wouldn't put it past him to be disingenuous if not deceptive.

 

Just now, Damual Travesty said:

You are not allowed to include statements of political controversy in your signature its in the rules of this board.I know because I know others have had to remove such signatures.

Political controversy? They're just statements of facts.

Just now, Phoenix Rising said:

From day one of his "presidency" trump has continuously slammed the intelligence community and you base trump supporters have parroted him. Now, suddenly, you listen to them and when this is pointed out you get insulted??

Seems to me you're as thin-skinned as trump.

 

PS. I've been warned?????

I understand what you are about and what your purpose is here. That I know full well.

3 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

No it does not. The issue here is that you and others are now attacking John Ratcliffe as being somehow dirty because he simply said that he has no intelligence that says the Russians have anything to do with the Biden laptop. That is the issue.

Let me put it to you like this: Trump has publicly stated he has issues with Wray and Barr because they won't act on prosecuting Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc. He isn't threatening Ratcliffe.

Can we take Rudy seriously. He is a grifter and a joke. A pale shadow of his past as the major of NYC.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/trump-lawyer-giuliani-in-hotel-bedroom-scene-new-borat-movie-13335784

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Let me put it to you like this: Trump has publicly stated he has issues with Wray and Barr because they won't act on prosecuting Barack Obama, Joe Biden, etc. He isn't threatening Ratcliffe.

Why should he threaten Ratcliffe? and what does Ratcliffe have to do with former officials in the Obama administration or Obama himself? I do not follow your logic here. Again, I understand you do not like President Trump. I understand you believe that the Biden laptop is somehow fake, or of no importance, I get it. Let's just wait and see what happens. Your commentary or mine has no effect on that. As for the election itself. It's coming very soon. Again, I have voted already. Not sure about if this has any real meaning for you at all.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Can we take Rudy seriously. He is a grifter and a joke. A pale shadow of his past as the major of NYC.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/trump-lawyer-giuliani-in-hotel-bedroom-scene-new-borat-movie-13335784

You are only posting smear because that is what you do. The election will be on Nov 3. The Biden laptop is real or it isn't.  The Chinese communist party will go away or it wont.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Ratcliffe has no authority to speak for the FBI. The FBI has not supported what Ratcliffe maintains. It neither confirms not denies. Which is what you'd expect it to do if an investigation were underway.

Wow. The FBI and all 16 other US Intelligence Agencies report to the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe. He's the intel boss. They probably can't announce anything without his permission! 

 

OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

 

To see how this works, watch Chris Wray and Radcliffe jointly announce Iran's election interference live on C-SPAN

2 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Why should he threaten Ratcliffe? and what does Ratcliffe have to do with former officials in the Obama administration or Obama himself? I do not follow your logic here. Again, I understand you do not like President Trump. I understand you believe that the Biden laptop is somehow fake, or of no importance, I get it. Let's just wait and see what happens. Your commentary or mine has no effect on that. As for the election itself. It's coming very soon. Again, I have voted already. Not sure about if this has any real meaning for you at all.

You would expect your vote to have meaning for me? Some meaning more special than the 10's of millions of other votes will be cast? What makes your vote special? Is it magic?

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

Wow. The FBI and all 16 other US Intelligence Agencies report to the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe. He's the intel boss. They probably can't announce anything without his permission! 

 

OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

 

To see how this works, watch Chris Wray and Radcliffe jointly announce Iran's election interference live on C-SPAN

And yet they refuse to endorse his statement about the Biden laptop whereas Wray joins Ratcliffe in announcing Iran's interference.

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Wow. The FBI and all 16 other US Intelligence Agencies report to the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe. He's the intel boss. They probably can't announce anything without his permission! 

 

OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

 

To see how this works, watch Chris Wray and Radcliffe jointly announce Iran's election interference live on C-SPAN

Just because they send reports to him doesn't mean that he's their boss. It doesn't mean that he can compel their reports.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

The story that there's a mix is pure supposition because that can't be confirmed by anyone as they don't have physical possession of the drives.  In my view it's just another half cocked theory but all in an effort to obfuscate and cast doubt.  Come out with a dozen or so claims, hypotheses, theories to keep the focus on the validity of the data so that the only truly important part, the data, is ignored.  Just a bunch of meaningless chatter to divert attention from the actual meat.

 

As to whether there was confirmed criminality in the email(s) that were verified by recipients or otherwise is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.  Let it all get verified (the content) and then we can sort through it to see where corruption exists or not.

 

There's corruption in not only both U.S. parties but in all political parties anywhere in the world.  That much I'm sure we can agree on.

 

In brief - you've got nothing.

13 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

I understand what you are about and what your purpose is here. That I know full well.

First you claim to know who's behind the Mueller report but won't tell. Now you reference PhoenixRising's purpose but again won't tell. Coy much?

5 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

You are only posting smear because that is what you do. The election will be on Nov 3. The Biden laptop is real or it isn't.  The Chinese communist party will go away or it wont.

Can't be smear if he admitted that this actually happen and he didn't sue which is up his alley as a prosecutor. 

11 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

You are only posting smear because that is what you do. The election will be on Nov 3. The Biden laptop is real or it isn't.  The Chinese communist party will go away or it wont.

What part of this confuses you. Its not Joe Bidens laptop or emails.

12 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Why should he threaten Ratcliffe? and what does Ratcliffe have to do with former officials in the Obama administration or Obama himself? I do not follow your logic here. Again, I understand you do not like President Trump. I understand you believe that the Biden laptop is somehow fake, or of no importance, I get it. Let's just wait and see what happens. Your commentary or mine has no effect on that. As for the election itself. It's coming very soon. Again, I have voted already. Not sure about if this has any real meaning for you at all.

Exactly. :Why should he threaten Ratcliffe? Well, if Trump were a decent CEO he would threaten Ratcliffe because he has engaged in sleazy acts. But since decency is not a part of Trump's armamentarium, why should he indeed. 

19 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

He is the director of National Intelligence. He is responsible for passing intelligence to the Congress of the USA for briefing. Are you saying he went on national television and told a purposeful lie to deceive the American public? That (1) really there is intelligence that says that Russians are behind this laptop, and he decided not to tell anyone? Or (2) that the info was not passed to him? Or (3) he has the info and purposefully is deceiving? Which of the above is your theory. Come on everyone play along chose your conspiracy theory 1 2 or 3?

“He is the director of National Intelligence. He is responsible for passing intelligence to the Congress of the USA for briefing”.

 

You up need to have a word with him:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-intelligence-office-will-no-longer-brief-congress-on-election-security-11598730496

 

“Are you saying he went on national television and told a purposeful lie to deceive the American public?”

 

Well he does seem to have a record on releasing unverified and previously rejected Intelligence and/or deceptively issuing information he knows is not verified and has been rejected.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/29/john-ratcliffe-hillary-clinton-russia-423022

 

 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And yet they refuse to endorse his statement about the Biden laptop whereas Wray joins Ratcliffe in announcing Iran's interference.

Please provide a reference where the FBI denys Ratcliffe's statements.

 

"In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the FBI said they “have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence.” ref

 

Nothing to add is normally a form of acknowledgement.

 

They did not say we neither confirm or deny.

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

Wow. The FBI and all 16 other US Intelligence Agencies report to the Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe. He's the intel boss. They probably can't announce anything without his permission! 

 

OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic

 

To see how this works, watch Chris Wray and Radcliffe jointly announce Iran's election interference live on C-SPAN

The funniest part was ratcliffe saying irans emails threatening biden supporters to not vote for biden was to hurt the trump vote.

 

Now there is some mental gymnastics and shows you how political he is.

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

Please provide a reference where the FBI denys Ratcliffe's statements.

 

"In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the FBI said they “have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence.” ref

 

Nothing to add is normally a form of acknowledgement.

 

They did not say we neither confirm or deny.

Who said they denied it. They refused to admit it.

 

Refusal to deny is not an admission of agreement.

 

Note they said they have nothing to add, so they have no evidence as to the veracity of the claim. Yet some here think they do.

Edited October 22, 20205 yr by Sujo

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Please provide a reference where the FBI denys Ratcliffe's statements.

 

"In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the FBI said they “have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence.” ref

 

Nothing to add is normally a form of acknowledgement.

 

They did not say we neither confirm or deny.

Normally? I've never heard the FBI make use of this phrase before in discussing cases. But it does sound like an unorthodox way to say "no comment." Maybe so as not to trigger Trump into another of his hissy fits against Wray and Barr.

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

Please provide a reference where the FBI denys Ratcliffe's statements.

 

"In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the FBI said they “have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence.” ref

 

Nothing to add is normally a form of acknowledgement.

 

They did not say we neither confirm or deny.

I believe that’s what is known as ‘hanging on every word’.

 

Common amongst people who are desperate to hear something they need to hear.

40 minutes ago, Damual Travesty said:

Again, Trump is not my Idol. I do not read the NY times I consider it a rag. I didn't read them when I lived in NYC either. I don't need you to advise me on what would be a great source of news.   Perhaps if I was a young man of about 12 or so I would need that kind of advice, but not now.  I pretty much have them all down, unless you want to recommend a good aggregator app. One which allows me to remove and add sources.

When I hear someone call one of the finest media outlets in the world "a rag", I know they've lost the plot.

 

So what's your #1 source for news.  Can't wait for this....

8 minutes ago, rabas said:

Please provide a reference where the FBI denys Ratcliffe's statements.

 

"In a letter to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, exclusively obtained by Fox News, the FBI said they “have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence.” ref

 

Nothing to add is normally a form of acknowledgement.

 

They did not say we neither confirm or deny.

They said "nothing to add at this time". So that doesn't leave open the possibility that at a later time they will? You know, like maybe the reports that they are conducting an investigation are true but the investigation isn't yet finished?

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

O.K.  Let's ask Joe to divulge all of his business dealings with China (and elsewhere?).  He hasn't made a peep about having any Chinese related business dealings.  Why so secretive?  Perhaps it would lead to more, do ya think?  And if he's running for president wouldn't any business dealings with the Chinese (especially if tied to the CCP) be of critical importance to disclose?  National security risks apply?

 

Wouldn't you want to know, simple1?  I sure as hell would if I were voting.  Or would all of that just be dandy with you?  I mean aren't you at all concerned?  I don't think ignorance would not be bliss here.  What if the roles were reversed and it was Trump?  Would you want to know?  Would you defend Trump in the same way you would defend Biden?

 

I understand Biden has provided all his financial records to relevant US authorities. trump has not, in fact trump refused to do so, even though he has at least one bank account in China and owes monies to foreign owned organisations. trump and family have boasted of taking in millions of dollars from Russians for overpriced US properties, you think the money was 'clean'; what were you saying about security risks at executive political level?