Sure. Our intelligence agencies are untrustworthy and Trump, Republicans and Russia are truthtellers.

If you were on a jury and the prosecuting attorney said “that man murdered his wife, as we have this mountain of evidence to demonstrate, but we don’t have photos of the man actually in the act of doing it”, you’d be the juror saying “Pics or it didn’t happen!”

Oh wow, look at the big brain on Tim. Using an acronym, “IC”, does not grant you credibility. In fact, since you’re using an acronym, or my preference “jargon”, that NO ONE uses, it does not somehow look smarter.

I’m referring to the evidence, which was provided to the public. You are saying “claims aren’t evidence”…

NO. Again, you’re describing “fundamentalism” not “critical thinking.”

If a blind man doesn’t trust the seeing guy who says “stop, a truck is coming” because he wants to feel it for himself, he’s operating on your level. If a blind man were to stop and listen for the truck, that would be critical thinking.

I would say that when I hear someone deliberately parsing the language in an intelligence community’s assessment to highlight the shred of information that dissents from the *overwhelming conclusion,* and when that person is posting from an anonymous internet account, I tend to suspect that this person may in fact be…

We’ve been known to bomb other countries, but we still get pretty upset when someone does it back, no?

Feel free to believe whatever your gut tells you. At the end of the day that’s what must Republicans do anyway.

Skepticism of these groups- who have lied repeatedly to the US public regarding surveillance programs, WOMD intelligence, etc.- is entirely valid.

The CIA and FBI have high confidence in those assertions; only the NSA is moderate - and likely only because they rely almost solely on electronic intel and generally don’t have the human assets (agents & informants) of the other two in place to further corroborate the data.