Saturday, December 10, 2016
Let's break this down, shall we?
Un-named "officials". Suspicious right form the outset.
"... who say they have identified..." But only on their say-so?
"... connected to the Russian government..." Connected in what way? Career bureaucrats? Aides? Spies? Again, no indication of how they're connected.
Let's look further, shalL we?
"By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence..." What evidence? None has been released, at least not to the general public, that I'm aware of.
And the statement that those unknown Russian government people "...gave WikiLeaks emails..." is nothing more than allegation and innuendo until, if and when, it's proven to be true. At present there is no reason to take the word of government officials or mainstream media that gave every appearance of being in the bag for Hillary Clinton even prior to her securing the Democratic nomination.
It must also be noted that nobody has released the original emails to verify that the tampering or changing alleged to have been done by the Russians actually happened. If they were tampered with or changed in any way, the originals would prove it. But they haven't been released. Why might that be?
I really don't care who leaked the emails. If the only thing up for dispute is who leaked them, and nobody is addressing whether their accurate copies of the originals, then that's really all that matters. And if they are, in fact, accurate representations, then something is very wrong within the DNC.
Critical thinking isn't really all that difficult.
©2016 by Don Rice Jr.