Keep deliberately missing the point. We know you know that you're wrong.
Oh. You're interested only in "credible facts." Got it.
Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.
This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.
The 17 organizations differ on their missions and scope, so they wouldn’t all be expected to contribute to every intelligence assessment, including one of this import.
"What matters is the agencies that (were involved) and whether, based on their mandate and collection responsibilities, those are the agencies best positioned to make the assessment," said Carrie Cordero, counsel at law firm ZwillGen and former counsel for various federal agencies focusing on national security.
For example, the intelligence arms of the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Coast Guard would not be expected to collect intelligence related to Russian interference in an election, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...elligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/
Expect to read about an Arkancide or two in the very near future.
Isn't that her signature on page 12?
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/182688.pdf
View attachment 26169
Hmmm. the sound of a Nazi interogator. Ve know zat you know und ve vill extract all...
Maybe the trial of the witches of salem is a better analogies. Drown them and if they die we know they are they are guilty. If they live, drown them a bit longer. Rinse and repeat.
Are you deliberately stupid or is it your normal state?
......
Did you bother to read it? ....
Isn't that her signature on page 12?
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/182688.pdf
View attachment 26169
Are you deliberately stupid or is it your normal state?
In the middle of page three.Barbarian observes:
Too bad for her, if it's true. But given the evidence, so far, looks as though she never even signed off on it.
Did you bother to read it? It doesn't even mention uranium
Evidently these retards do not have such things as reading skills. NM.
In the middle of page three.