Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
If that Guardian story is disinformation (and I agree that's likely), it would have the effect of shifting the known timeline and players in the 2016 operation.
What few are doing, however, is comparing the claims in the Guardian document to what we (think we) know about the 2016 operation, which not only is a good way to test their accuracy but also might answer the question Douglas London raised with Unger: “‘Coincidence and convenience are red flags in espionage,’ he told SpyTalk. ‘So why now?'”
If these documents are disinformation, they would change the known story in at least two ways. The resulting story would sustain a claim that both key events and key players in the 2016 Russian operation weren’t really part of that operation. That is, if this is disinformation, it likely was told to try to obscure who were the most important players in the 2016 operation and what events were part of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Ah, the why's and if's and likely's and at leasts of disinformation sure do raise questions. And nobody can know the answers. But they make good insinuations.
Threaded Mode