How is Russia's posting ads on Facebook tantamount to "meddling" in the U.S. election?

[forkup]

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election? And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down. So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

The court of public opinion has a lower burden of proof then the legal system. That legal system in no uncertain terms is saying that," yes the Russians did in fact do it." Hence the indictments. Indictments that have to be approved by a grand jury BEFORE they can be issued.

 

[candycorn]

It sounds like you [Candycorn] don't believe in the first amendment. It's not surprising. Many on the left do not. Yet, they call those of us on the right "fascist". LOL.

It seems you believe Facebook is a government entity. They call those of you on the right 'ignorant'.

It sounds like candycorn is advocating for arresting people that post untruthful things on the internet. Perhaps you share that sentiment.

Of course you can quote me as saying that...right?

Well? Where you at K9Buck; quote me or shut the fuck up.

 

[forkup]

Read: Mueller indictment against 12 Russian spies for DNC hack
Seems to me these indictments are about more then posting facebook ads. In fact I don't believe facebook is even mentioned in this indictment. That was part of a different part of the effort.

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election? And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down. So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

 

[Tehon]

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election? And we were hearing about how the Russians had "meddle" in our elections for well over a year and long, long before these indictments came down. So, I'll ask again, how is posting ads on Facebook tantamount to election interference?

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

 

[forkup]

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

 

[Tehon]

I have a problem with the assertion that knowledge undermines an election campaign.

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

 

[forkup]

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

 

[Anathema]

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I think we all agree with that. What I feel, and I think many other people do as well is that we have not been shown how any of this actually affected the outcome of the election or any direct and personal between this meddling and the current POTUS, himself.

 

[forkup]

Depends on how that knowledge is used, why it is used and whom it is using. For instance in these indictments the DNC was hacked by the Russian government, lets keep aside that that is a crime. It gave one side an advantage, which goes against the principle of a fair election. But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events has proven casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Oh and it isn't the USG, it is EVERYBODY who has the information.

 

[forkup]

Espionage in an effort to undermine the ELECTION campaign of a particular candidate is MEDDLING in an election campaign. If you don't even agree to that there is no point in having a conversation.

I think we all agree with that. What I feel, and I think many other people do as well is that we have not been shown how any of this actually affected the outcome of the election or any direct and personal between this meddling and the current POTUS, himself.

We don't all agree with that apparently if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you. The fact that it made a difference or not is irrelevant to the fact it did happen. And there is already, loose from what Mueller has not disclosed a plethora of disturbing facts already known. Papadopolous was ordered to make contact with Russians. Not conjecture, he admitted to it. Carter Page bragged about being a Russian asset. Why Carter Page Was Worth Watching Again not conjecture it's been well established. Don Jr had a meeting with people who at the very least said they represented the Russian government with the express purpose of getting dirt on Hilary again the relevant emails he released himself. And then we have the simple matter of the President of the United States. A man who searches out conflict with his closest allies is simply unwilling unless being forced, to do ANYTHING that the Russians don't like. Not for nothing but looking into the why of those facts is by no means a ridiculous notion.

 

[Anathema]

We don't all agree with that apparently if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you....

Here’s what I need to se to start caring...

1. Added, subtracted or changed ballots on 11/6/2016.

2. Direct connection between Donald Trump and Russian intelligence assets.

3. Direct communication between Donald Trump and members of his campaign staff directing action to/from Russian assets.

Until/unless any of those can be provided, I just don’t care. The USA has done these things to foreign countries for decades. We got a taste of our own medicine and it tasted sour to many. Too bad.

 

[Defiant1]

When have we indicted foreign intelligence agents for computer hacking?

Not sure we have. I'm not sure we haven't.

Why?

I made a cursory search on Google. I didn't find any example of a foreign intelligence agent being indicted for cyber hacking. As I said, the indictments seem to be a precedent.

Normally we just kick each other's spies out of our country. We don't indict, prosecute and imprison them. Does the left want to abolish this agreement?

Do American intelligence agencies engage in cyber hacking? Does the left support handing them over to foreign governments that accuse them of engaging in such?

I can't speak for the entire "left" but we certainly do imprison foreign spies as we are doing now. Well, if someone is hacking on their own, I would hope they would be handed over. If they are doing so to protect our national interest under orders from our elected officials...that is a different kettle of fish.

Much like it is much different if the Trump campaign worked with the hackers vs. us just getting hacked by the Russian federation. Given the multiple meetings with Russians during the campaign that this administration has lied about repeatedly, it is worth looking into. Which is what Mueller is doing.

Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.

Total garbage.

We probably would have a President who would like to get to the bottom of what happened and modernize/standardize or election apparatus, we probably would have a president who trusts the intel community, we definitely would have a president who didn't grovel at the feet of Putin like Trumpkin did last week....

The DNC, RNC, and any other *NC servers are not part of our election apparatus.

 

[K9Buck]

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

Don't lie. I said posting mean things on Facebook isn't tantamount to election interference.

 

[forkup]

We don't all agree with that apparently if you go through this OP, you'll see people disagreeing with that assessment. As to the rest I have a simple question. What, if anything WOULD convince you....

Here’s what I need to se to start caring...

1. Added, subtracted or changed ballots on 11/6/2016.

2. Direct connection between Donald Trump and Russian intelligence assets.

3. Direct communication between Donald Trump and members of his campaign staff directing action to/from Russian assets.

Until/unless any of those can be provided, I just don’t care. The USA has done these things to foreign countries for decades. We got a taste of our own medicine and it tasted sour to many. Too bad.

Then you are asking for more proof then the justice department would. There is plenty of precedent for people being convicted without having been caught red handed. Would you find it reasonable for a murderer not being convicted despite DNA evidence, simply because you weren't there and the DNA could have been planted, without having any reason to suspect it was? Point one was irrelevant. Point two only works if you believe that Don Jr, Kushner, Manafort and Papadopolous worked without telling him anything.
Point three is equally unreasonable. If you don't accept the fact that they were willing to do so as sufficiently damning I can only assume them actually doing so wouldn't matter either. If someone buys sugar under the impression it is cocaine, you would assume he is a junkie now wouldn't you?

 

[forkup]

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

Don't lie. I said posting mean things on Facebook isn't tantamount to election interference.

Who's lying?

Well, hacking into someone's computer system is a crime, it's also espionage. How is that akin to "meddling" in an election?

 

[Tehon]

That knowledge is used by anyone and everyone that possesses it, namely the voting population. That the voting population became aware of the knowledge by way of a crime is unfortunate for the Clinton campaign. Had that knowledge been benign there wouldn't have been a problem aside from the crime.

That crime has yet to be prosecuted except in the court of public opinion. Saying the Russians did it is misinformation and invalidates the question.

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

But it goes further then that, because the Russians did it,one has to answer the question of the reason they did, something that has national security implications. Even if the answer to that question is benign, the simple fact that it happened, as events have proven, casts suspicion on any act by the president and this has consequences for the faith in the Democratic system as a whole. And makes the president less effective. K9buck and so many others on this board are arguing that the question doesn't have to be answered, which leads me to believe that they suspect what I fear. Namely that the president of the United States is compromised.

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure we have. I'm not sure we haven't.

Why?

I made a cursory search on Google. I didn't find any example of a foreign intelligence agent being indicted for cyber hacking. As I said, the indictments seem to be a precedent.

Normally we just kick each other's spies out of our country. We don't indict, prosecute and imprison them. Does the left want to abolish this agreement?

Do American intelligence agencies engage in cyber hacking? Does the left support handing them over to foreign governments that accuse them of engaging in such?

I can't speak for the entire "left" but we certainly do imprison foreign spies as we are doing now. Well, if someone is hacking on their own, I would hope they would be handed over. If they are doing so to protect our national interest under orders from our elected officials...that is a different kettle of fish.

Much like it is much different if the Trump campaign worked with the hackers vs. us just getting hacked by the Russian federation. Given the multiple meetings with Russians during the campaign that this administration has lied about repeatedly, it is worth looking into. Which is what Mueller is doing.

Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.

Total garbage.

We probably would have a President who would like to get to the bottom of what happened and modernize/standardize or election apparatus, we probably would have a president who trusts the intel community, we definitely would have a president who didn't grovel at the feet of Putin like Trumpkin did last week....

The DNC, RNC, and any other *NC servers are not part of our election apparatus.

As a practical matter they are, of course.

As for the election apparatus;

 

[Defiant1]

I made a cursory search on Google. I didn't find any example of a foreign intelligence agent being indicted for cyber hacking. As I said, the indictments seem to be a precedent.

Normally we just kick each other's spies out of our country. We don't indict, prosecute and imprison them. Does the left want to abolish this agreement?

Do American intelligence agencies engage in cyber hacking? Does the left support handing them over to foreign governments that accuse them of engaging in such?

I can't speak for the entire "left" but we certainly do imprison foreign spies as we are doing now. Well, if someone is hacking on their own, I would hope they would be handed over. If they are doing so to protect our national interest under orders from our elected officials...that is a different kettle of fish.

Much like it is much different if the Trump campaign worked with the hackers vs. us just getting hacked by the Russian federation. Given the multiple meetings with Russians during the campaign that this administration has lied about repeatedly, it is worth looking into. Which is what Mueller is doing.

Mueller is a partisan Democrat who is out to overthrow Trump. That's what this is all about. If Hillary had won, so-called "Russian meddling" probably wouldn't have come up.

Total garbage.

We probably would have a President who would like to get to the bottom of what happened and modernize/standardize or election apparatus, we probably would have a president who trusts the intel community, we definitely would have a president who didn't grovel at the feet of Putin like Trumpkin did last week....

The DNC, RNC, and any other *NC servers are not part of our election apparatus.

As a practical matter they are, of course.

As for the election apparatus;

View attachment 206081

Do you want to put people in prison who ping servers?

 

[forkup]

Oh and by the way I noticed that you didn't try to engage the second part of my reply

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

 

[Tehon]

I'm not going to engage in supposition. The State is obligated to prove its case in a court of law. An indictment does nothing more than grant them the case. It's entirely insufficient to be used in the manner you are using it.

Oh really? So you are willing to forego a national security issue because the public opinion, working on incomplete information, information that is comprehensive if you are willing to read it, influenced by political considerations isn't convinced it happened? This despite that 99.99999 percent of the people who do have all the information say it did (on both sides of the aisle, throughout the entire administration, and among all intelligence agencies)? Despite the fact that that 0.00001 percent of the people (POTUS) who say it didn't, have all the reason in the world to lie about it? And even he is constantly forced to say it did. The court system asks for REASONABLE doubt. You seem to be asking for beyond a shadow of a doubt, why?

Private servers do not qualify as a national security issue, imo. If it did constitute a national emergency then Obama was derelict in his duty to respond in a manner befitting one.

Like I said, the State is obligated to prove their case in a court of law. It's a long standing American tradition.

The USG also has a long tradition of misrepresenting facts to the American people in order to suit its foreign policy objectives. That is something that should remain at the forefront of all our consciousness despite how tempting it is to give in to partisan prejudices.

Hillary Clinton lost of her own accord.

Lol so first we have Buck saying that the act of espionage by a foreign government isn't election meddling and now we have someone claiming that espionage by a foreign government isn't a national security issue . I will say the same thing to you then. If you cannot establish a base line for a conversation there is no point in having one.

You're right, it is a national security issue but I am not foregoing it. I am waiting on the State to prosecute it. In a court, not the media. The politicizing of it coupled with the foreign policy implications make it imperative that we cast a cautious eye on the proceedings.

Good then we agree. So lets make an agreement. We will wait for the findings of the probe. We will not question it's findings and let the chips fall as they may. Agreed?

I am waiting for the findings but don't thing for a second that I won't cast a questioning eye on them.