Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified.
In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10.
He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government. (Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing)
This seems to have put to bed the claim that “Russia hacked the election so Hillary lost.” Simultaneously, we can also notice that the false Russia claim disappeared from MSM at the same time Susan Rice’s misuse of intelligence was being made public.
In a nutshell, this is what I hate about the left. As a linguist, I see this side of the left as violent, stupid, and close-minded. As a person, I see it as dangerous groupthink that ostracizes individuals who disagree. I am glad Hannity is doing this. We need more of it.
An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people. (Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump)
- the attackers described in Part 1 need only target the dominant group within the large society
- this conserves resources
- once the target group within the large society has been selected, attackers need only target one of its genders, either male or female
- best case for the attackers is they simultaneously are able to convince the non-targeted gender to attack the targeted one
- reasons for the non-targeted gender to attack the other make little difference since the goal is primarily to weaken and destabilize the society to prepare it for takeover
If we observe these signs in any society in the world, we would be right to suspect that a plot like the one described in Part 1 could be or is unfolding.
- there may be more than one group engaging in this strategy now or in the past
- one group may have taught others to use similar tactics
- best if these groups do not seem very much connected though they may share general ideals