Please cite evidence that the intelligence cartel would talk to the electoral college if there was any proof of this pathetic rumor campaign. Show us what rule says that has to happen.

I never said there was a written rule. I am appealing to common sense.

So John Podesta
[quote]
“The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Clinton's former campaign
chairman John Podesta said in a statement on Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”[/qoute]

Is he wrong here? Is this seriously an avenue that hasn't been explored by the left? Or common sense, an understanding of the Constitution, and the adversarial process, what other conclusion is there? Democrats all of a sudden don't want the electoral college to vote their way?

Considering you have filled a few threads with unsubstantive/troll posts you don't really get to call me out when I point out you're whining about Wookie is troll.

Lol, if you say so. You're the boss.

So when did the intelligence cartel meet with all the electors in your estimation?

Before they voted.

Either that or they didn't meet because the rumors didn't meet standards.

So you don't know if they met or not, nor what kind of rules would govern that type of gathering?

Correct. If I had to guess, I'd say they didn't meet about Trump allegedly being black mailed.

If there was something there, people would have acted accordingly.

The only other case I can think of is that there's business ties that the CIA, etc. are unable to find evidence of, which would paint a picture of potentially most of congress being targeted, which is amusing to think about. Perhaps it's a huge conspiracy and it's the tip of the iceburg. But, I don't think USA is all that helpless about such things.

This article says the former MI6 agent responsible for the golden showers dossier feels the FBI neglected their Trump investigation because they were fixated on Clinton's email.

What's weird about the report is the factual errors, and lack of supporting evidence. It's not very good work. ( I can cite on request. ) Also, my limited understanding is that intelligence leans Republican but is 180 degrees from Russian interests. It's doesn't seem like Russia is one of their blindspots, and they hated Hilary more than Putin himself.

How capable can Russia be with their economy the way it is. With all the graft, there are a limited number of players to get things done, and the overwhelming prevailing wisdom is that it enriches Putin in the back door. Road construction for example is many times cost, and defense must be hard to produce as well. So, I don't have the fear of Russian conquest.

It's amazing that you spend weeks posting in threads like this, with very confident opinions without even a cursory knowledge of world issues or foreign policy knowledge. You're doing a great chezlaw impression.

Russia is always stronger than you think they are and weaker than they think they are.

According to what? The rules for meeting with electors you just made up in your head? Because you've yet to produce any evidence that the IC has rules down on the books for this sort of thing.

and what did the deputy director do?

is he even under indictment in the USA#1? Latest article I can find (from 2013) says no

No the whole thing is he is afraid he will be sent to the US if he goes to face his sexual assault charges.

He continues to be a silly goose.

betrayed them because he was upset at being passed over for promotion

Wikileaks spreading the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Classy, responsible fellows.

Assange has never told a lie!

Clearly all preorchestrated by the troika of Trump, Putin and Assange.

McClatchyDC: FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump

Well, he promised to turn himself in if Manning was released, but changed his mind after he got what he wanted. Does that count as a lie?