But the part you missed was that Russia didn’t claim to be backing Trump. That info is being reported from leaked documents over secret meetings in the Kremlin.
That would be a big difference, because it doesn’t mean we’re using Russia’s public affairs team as a trustworthy source. It means we’re using leaked documents from the Russian government as a trustworthy source.
The PA team says that Russia wasn’t involved in backing Trump, and they’re declaring it loudly. The documents, which weren’t supposed to be seen, say something else.
Ostensibly, only one of those sources is actually supposed to be a source of information, which makes the information that WASN’T supposed to be a source more trustworthy, assuming it is verified properly.
So if you want to argue that to normies, that’s the argument you need to focus on. Because pretending there isn’t a difference between leaked secret documents and their professional spin doctors is kind of silly.
In general, I am not going to accept at face-value what a propaganda spokesman from a foreign country says about a secret election interference operation they are accused of nor expect them to talk honestly to the public about any secret documents relating to these operations. Why would you?
Almost!
But the part you missed was that Russia didn’t claim to be backing Trump. That info is being reported from leaked documents over secret meetings in the Kremlin.
That would be a big difference, because it doesn’t mean we’re using Russia’s public affairs team as a trustworthy source. It means we’re using leaked documents from the Russian government as a trustworthy source.
The PA team says that Russia wasn’t involved in backing Trump, and they’re declaring it loudly. The documents, which weren’t supposed to be seen, say something else.
Ostensibly, only one of those sources is actually supposed to be a source of information, which makes the information that WASN’T supposed to be a source more trustworthy, assuming it is verified properly.
So if you want to argue that to normies, that’s the argument you need to focus on. Because pretending there isn’t a difference between leaked secret documents and their professional spin doctors is kind of silly.
In general, I am not going to accept at face-value what a propaganda spokesman from a foreign country says about a secret election interference operation they are accused of nor expect them to talk honestly to the public about any secret documents relating to these operations. Why would you?
No disrespect. Here's a suggestion. Being succinct sells better. Otherwise 'normies' gloss over the message and only read the beginning and end.
Luckily, I'm talking to Q researchers, not normies.
I was trying to be nice.
"Because pretending there isn’t a difference between leaked secret documents and their professional spin doctors is kind of silly."
You don't trust what foreign countries say, but still trust a leaked document of... what they say.
I get there is a difference between public and personal conversations, but the key word here is trust.