DEM insider, not "THE RUSSIANS" responsible for DNC hack

[Lewdog]

Wrong, they couldn't subpoena, because they wouldn't have known to subpoena them without the illegal information.

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.

Your example doesn't fit your claim.

If you wanted a warrant to prove that some defamatory photo someone published on the internet was a fake, and he admitted it in an email that was published on the internet after it was hacked, then a judge would issue a subpoena for the original email. That's exculpatory evidence, and a judge cannot refuse either side the right to present it as evidence in a trial.

For one that doesn't fit this argument that what Wikileaks publishes can be used in a court of law, or if it can be used to get a warrant for someone's private email. Your argument would be a civil trial, and one in which the photo of the person was being asked to prove if it was fake was being requested by the plaintiff. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong again. If the police didn't produce the information, they can legally be subpoenaed.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.

Your example doesn't fit your claim.

If you wanted a warrant to prove that some defamatory photo someone published on the internet was a fake, and he admitted it in an email that was published on the internet after it was hacked, then a judge would issue a subpoena for the original email. That's exculpatory evidence, and a judge cannot refuse either side the right to present it as evidence in a trial.

For one that doesn't fit this argument that what Wikileaks publishes can be used in a court of law, or if it can be used to get a warrant for someone's private email. Your argument would be a civil trial, and one in which the photo of the person was being asked to prove if it was fake was being requested by the plaintiff. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Puhleeze. You're too fucking stupid to bother continuing this argument.

 

[Lewdog]

WRONG. They have to have probable cause to subpoena it. They can't use an anonymous source to do that on. Again... stick to engineering.

If they have a copy published on the internet, that's all the "probable cause" they need. And, yes, they can use an anonymous source.

You're dumbass. Just admit it before you make a complete ass of yourself.

Wrong. They can not use an anonymous source as probable cause for a warrant to obtain someone's private email. I could post on here you told me you killed someone and buried their body under your house. Do you really think they could get a warrant to search your house and dig under your house on that? You are a fucking loon.

Your example doesn't fit your claim.

If you wanted a warrant to prove that some defamatory photo someone published on the internet was a fake, and he admitted it in an email that was published on the internet after it was hacked, then a judge would issue a subpoena for the original email. That's exculpatory evidence, and a judge cannot refuse either side the right to present it as evidence in a trial.

For one that doesn't fit this argument that what Wikileaks publishes can be used in a court of law, or if it can be used to get a warrant for someone's private email. Your argument would be a civil trial, and one in which the photo of the person was being asked to prove if it was fake was being requested by the plaintiff. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Puhleeze. You're too fucking stupid to bother continuing this argument.

Yes, you should stop while you are behind.

 

[pwjohn]

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

• Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
• He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
• The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
• Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
• 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
• Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SrMrOjX5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More fake news.

What are your verified reliable sources?

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

• Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
• He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
• The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
• Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
• 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
• Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SrMrOjX5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More fake news.

What are your verified reliable sources?

Lame stream media. I'm sure you're familiar with who they are individually.

 

[turzovka]

And what exactly does "pizzagate" have to do with false info being inserted into the RussiaLeaks/WikiLies emails, unless you are admitting that pizzagate is a perfect example of such tampering.


Read the link.

I read the link. 17 agencies say the Russians are responsible. Oh, jolly. They don't really say how they can prove that with any certainty. And I doubt wikileaks would then come out later and say that is untrue and most of the info came from a DNC insider if in fact it was already "proven" it came from Russians.

Secondly, they still DO NOT speak to the contents of the emails. THAT is the main issue! Oh, but the spokesman in your link --- ever the evasive type --- says the following:

BENENSON: "Well, first of all, I’ll tell you something, I haven’t spent a lot of time reading through WikiLeaks e-mails. But I will tell you this, what we know is that many are not authentic. We know that this is a hack, 17 of Russians — no, because these e-mails, we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with once the Russians..."

So Benenson is the DNC spokesman and "man-in-the-know" authority on this BUT... he admits he hasn't hardly read any emails -- and yet -- he knows many are not authentic. Which ones? What parts? Then in the next sentence he contradicts himself and says >>> "we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with..." What the hell? You and your people did not think it important to determine that? Could not find copies of the same emails on Podesta's or other named recipient's computers? Well, of course not, why impugn yourselves, just say we have no idea. This is a joke!

What does any of this have to do with pizzagate you ask? Where have you been? Videos everywhere on the connection between pizzagate and the wikileaks emails, especially with Podesta. I don't care to do all the leg work but I see a number of them have been scrubbed off of youtube and even infowars has probably been threatened and took a couple down. Although a ton of information remains on infowars and other sites. I will just link you to the USMB post that is still around and so are some of the videos linked. Go to the OP and the second post and watch those videos. Then tell me it's all been proved "fake news" by Snopes or anyone else beholden to the Obama-Clinton world.

PAEDOPHILIA in high places

Oddly enough another poster later on had many great links from various sources that gave a lot of detail about the suspects but it appears he has since deleted his post. And, quite frankly, I cannot blame him. Many people do not survive these investigations including Andrew Breitbart himself. 43 year old Andrew falls dead on the sidewalk walking his dog. An eye witness described his appearance which other medical voices said did not sound like the heart attack the coroner reported it as. Oddly enough a coroner associated with that findings (not the main one) was found poisoned a few weeks later. Throw in the young female journalist who a few weeks ago went down to Haiti to investigate child trafficking and possible ties to the Clinton Foundation. Days after arriving she is dead. The report: "an apparent suicide." Yeah right. We've heard that song before. WHOA! Woman Investigating Clinton Foundation CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING Just Found DEAD...

 

[edthecynic]

And what exactly does "pizzagate" have to do with false info being inserted into the RussiaLeaks/WikiLies emails, unless you are admitting that pizzagate is a perfect example of such tampering.


Read the link.

I read the link. 17 agencies say the Russians are responsible. Oh, jolly. They don't really say how they can prove that with any certainty. And I doubt wikileaks would then come out later and say that is untrue and most of the info came from a DNC insider if in fact it was already "proven" it came from Russians.

Secondly, they still DO NOT speak to the contents of the emails. THAT is the main issue! Oh, but the spokesman in your link --- ever the evasive type --- says the following:

BENENSON: "Well, first of all, I’ll tell you something, I haven’t spent a lot of time reading through WikiLeaks e-mails. But I will tell you this, what we know is that many are not authentic. We know that this is a hack, 17 of Russians — no, because these e-mails, we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with once the Russians..."

So Benenson is the DNC spokesman and "man-in-the-know" authority on this BUT... he admits he hasn't hardly read any emails -- and yet -- he knows many are not authentic. Which ones? What parts? Then in the next sentence he contradicts himself and says >>> "we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with..." What the hell? You and your people did not think it important to determine that? Could not find copies of the same emails on Podesta's or other named recipient's computers? Well, of course not, why impugn yourselves, just say we have no idea. This is a joke!

What does any of this have to do with pizzagate you ask? Where have you been? Videos everywhere on the connection between pizzagate and the wikileaks emails, especially with Podesta. I don't care to do all the leg work but I see a number of them have been scrubbed off of youtube and even infowars has probably been threatened and took a couple down. Although a ton of information remains on infowars and other sites. I will just link you to the USMB post that is still around and so are some of the videos linked. Go to the OP and the second post and watch those videos. Then tell me it's all been proved "fake news" by Snopes or anyone else beholden to the Obama-Clinton world.

PAEDOPHILIA in high places

Oddly enough another poster later on had many great links from various sources that gave a lot of detail about the suspects but it appears he has since deleted his post. And, quite frankly, I cannot blame him. Many people do not survive these investigations including Andrew Breitbart himself. 43 year old Andrew falls dead on the sidewalk walking his dog. An eye witness described his appearance which other medical voices said did not sound like the heart attack the coroner reported it as. Oddly enough a coroner associated with that findings (not the main one) was found poisoned a few weeks later. Throw in the young female journalist who a few weeks ago went down to Haiti to investigate child trafficking and possible ties to the Clinton Foundation. Days after arriving she is dead. The report: "an apparent suicide." Yeah right. We've heard that song before. WHOA! Woman Investigating Clinton Foundation CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING Just Found DEAD...

WOW! You even stoop to the "Clinton Body Count" lies!!!
There is no lie too low for a Trumpist liar.

 

[ColonelAngus]

And what exactly does "pizzagate" have to do with false info being inserted into the RussiaLeaks/WikiLies emails, unless you are admitting that pizzagate is a perfect example of such tampering.


Read the link.

I read the link. 17 agencies say the Russians are responsible. Oh, jolly. They don't really say how they can prove that with any certainty. And I doubt wikileaks would then come out later and say that is untrue and most of the info came from a DNC insider if in fact it was already "proven" it came from Russians.

Secondly, they still DO NOT speak to the contents of the emails. THAT is the main issue! Oh, but the spokesman in your link --- ever the evasive type --- says the following:

BENENSON: "Well, first of all, I’ll tell you something, I haven’t spent a lot of time reading through WikiLeaks e-mails. But I will tell you this, what we know is that many are not authentic. We know that this is a hack, 17 of Russians — no, because these e-mails, we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with once the Russians..."

So Benenson is the DNC spokesman and "man-in-the-know" authority on this BUT... he admits he hasn't hardly read any emails -- and yet -- he knows many are not authentic. Which ones? What parts? Then in the next sentence he contradicts himself and says >>> "we have no idea whether they are authentic or not or whether they’ve been tampered with..." What the hell? You and your people did not think it important to determine that? Could not find copies of the same emails on Podesta's or other named recipient's computers? Well, of course not, why impugn yourselves, just say we have no idea. This is a joke!

What does any of this have to do with pizzagate you ask? Where have you been? Videos everywhere on the connection between pizzagate and the wikileaks emails, especially with Podesta. I don't care to do all the leg work but I see a number of them have been scrubbed off of youtube and even infowars has probably been threatened and took a couple down. Although a ton of information remains on infowars and other sites. I will just link you to the USMB post that is still around and so are some of the videos linked. Go to the OP and the second post and watch those videos. Then tell me it's all been proved "fake news" by Snopes or anyone else beholden to the Obama-Clinton world.

PAEDOPHILIA in high places

Oddly enough another poster later on had many great links from various sources that gave a lot of detail about the suspects but it appears he has since deleted his post. And, quite frankly, I cannot blame him. Many people do not survive these investigations including Andrew Breitbart himself. 43 year old Andrew falls dead on the sidewalk walking his dog. An eye witness described his appearance which other medical voices said did not sound like the heart attack the coroner reported it as. Oddly enough a coroner associated with that findings (not the main one) was found poisoned a few weeks later. Throw in the young female journalist who a few weeks ago went down to Haiti to investigate child trafficking and possible ties to the Clinton Foundation. Days after arriving she is dead. The report: "an apparent suicide." Yeah right. We've heard that song before. WHOA! Woman Investigating Clinton Foundation CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING Just Found DEAD...

WOW! You even stoop to the "Clinton Body Count" lies!!!
There is no lie too low for a Trumpist liar.

There certainly were lots of lies in those DNC emails. Which DNC lies did you think were the worst?

 

[edthecynic]

What false information?
The only one I am aware --- and the only one the MSM dares report on --- is where Donald Trump quoted an email and attributed the quote to the wrong person. Yes, he made a mistake and that was both admitted and cleared up. So that proves what? That all these emails have been doctored? Who is coming forth claiming that and proving that? No one.

Not even close to being true.
Not only did Tramp not admit it and refused to comment on it, his Russian source, Sputnik, also refused to comment.

Dear Mr. Trump, I am not Sidney Blumenthal
The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fever dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.

But the Russians had faked it all, taking a real document released by WikiLeaks and altering it to create a bogus story—one that ultimately was picked up by Trump himself. Since Newsweek first broke the story online, some journalists have speculated that the misrepresentation of the email may have merely been an error by an overworked Russian news agency. However, according to a government official with direct knowledge of the American intelligence agencies’ inquiry into the Russian hacking campaign, and who spoke on condition of anonymity, that theory is “absurd.”

A classified report submitted last summer to the congressional intelligence committees and a September 23 letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence specifically identify Sputnik as a central participant in a Russian disinformation campaign designed to use hacking and other techniques to interfere with the American election while strengthening Moscow’s global influence.

“Moscow appears to use monetary support in combination with other tools of Russian statecraft, including propaganda in local media, direct lobbying by the Russian Government, economic pressure, and military intimidation,” the letter says. “Russian trolls and other cyber actors post comments on the Internet, maintain blogs, challenge ‘pro-Western’ journalists and media narratives, and spread pro-Russian information on social media.”

Because of its important role in the Russian effort, Sputnik does not simply publish whatever it chooses, the government official tells Newsweek. Articles pertaining to politics in the United States and Europe require high-level review. It is not clear if Russian authorities conduct that review, the official says, but no article directly related to American politics would just be sloppily thrown into public view without careful consideration. (The article in question disappeared from the website shortly after Newsweek attempted to contact Sputnik about it.)
snip/
American officials have recently been predicting that manipulated documents would soon be appearing in outlets like Sputnik, which, until now, has been a source of some real records. On October 6, 16 former high-level intelligence officials, senators and other experts on national security released a cautionary letter about the methods that Russia uses in these campaigns.

“It is imperative that we focus on the broad disinformation campaign that is already underway,” the officials wrote. “What is taking place in the United States follows a well-known Russian playbook: First leak compelling and truthful information to gain credibility. The next step: release fake documents that look the same. This leaves a discredited actor in the position of denying the authenticity in the merciless court of public opinion, just weeks before an election.”

According to these officials, Russia has used these techniques in Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Germany and now in the United States.

“The process has begun and stage has been set for the introduction of false information,” the national security experts wrote. “Altering stolen documents and introducing them to the public is not the stuff of spy movies. It is a proven tactic of Russian intelligence, and we expect it will happen here.”

Other altered documents have already been the basis of articles on Sputnik, the government official with knowledge of the intelligence agencies’ inquiries tells Newsweek. However, the Blumenthal email appears to be the first manipulated record to be publicly identified.
snip/
This false story was reported only by the Russian-controlled agency (a reference appeared in a Turkish publication, but it was nothing but a link to the Sputnik article). So how did Donald Trump end up advancing the same falsehood put out by Putin’s mouthpiece?

At a rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.”

“This just came out a little while ago,” Trump said. “I have to tell you this.”

And then he read the words from my article.

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,” Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.”

The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”
snip/
(The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah..............sure.............like we're gonna believe a blog from a British citizen.

Get me a reliable American news source, or American politician saying this and I'd be more likely to believe you.

You wouldn't believe a fox news link so what's the point?

 

[turzovka]

WOW! You even stoop to the "Clinton Body Count" lies!!!
There is no lie too low for a Trumpist liar.

I also stoop to talk to mental midgets --- your level.

Honestly, I add up 10 of your posts, enter the data into a software program, and the results comes out to equal "Total Zero." I wish you well, but I have no respect for you and any sincerity in discussing issues with any integrity. None.

 

[edthecynic]

Yeah..............sure.............like we're gonna believe a blog from a British citizen.

Get me a reliable American news source, or American politician saying this and I'd be more likely to believe you.

You wouldn't believe a fox news link so what's the point?

No one with even one working brain cell would ever believe a Faux News Channel Rumor Mill story!

 

[edthecynic]

WOW! You even stoop to the "Clinton Body Count" lies!!!
There is no lie too low for a Trumpist liar.

I also stoop to talk to mental midgets --- your level.

Honestly, I add up 10 of your posts, enter the data into a software program, and the results comes out to equal "Total Zero." I wish you well, but have no respect for your interest in discussing issues with any integrity.

Sure, like the Clinton Body Count lie and the Pizzagate lie are examples of integrity!!!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Yeah..............sure.............like we're gonna believe a blog from a British citizen.

Get me a reliable American news source, or American politician saying this and I'd be more likely to believe you.

You wouldn't believe a fox news link so what's the point?

No one with even one working brain cell would ever believe a Faux News Channel Rumor Mill story!

Well that takes all the Democrats out of the equation. Like I said, it wouldn't be believed anyhow

 

[AntonToo]

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

• Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
• He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
• The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
• Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
• 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
• Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SrMrOjX5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

LOL what fucking nonsense, no Democrat would ever hack DNC for Trump's benefit. The motivations described are straight conservative talking points. DNC's preference for Clinton was barely material and made little to no difference in the primaries.

 

[francoHFW]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

They're routine and mean nothing- except to pundits desperate for something to bs about...a disgrace.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

exactly. If someone murders somebody, and a video of it happening was illegally shot or illegally handed off to someone else, do we not prosecute because the proof was not properly obtained? or do we serve justice based on the clear proof.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

• Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
• He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
• The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
• Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
• 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
• Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html#ixzz4SrMrOjX5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

LOL what fucking nonsense, no Democrat would ever hack DNC for Trump's benefit. The motivations described are straight conservative talking points. DNC's preference for Clinton was barely material and made little to no difference in the primaries.

its not really turning out to be in his benefit now is it.
As a matter of fact, it seems as though its going to tarnish his record before he even steps foot in the white house.
The dems knew this would happen when they did it. Pretty sure it was their back up plan to make sure colostomy clair would be the next puppet, I mean president.

 

[Lewdog]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

exactly. If someone murders somebody, and a video of it happening was illegally shot or illegally handed off to someone else, do we not prosecute because the proof was not properly obtained? or do we serve justice based on the clear proof.

I'm sorry but that isn't how law works. You don't create laws that can only be applied in certain circumstances and not to everyone.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

exactly. If someone murders somebody, and a video of it happening was illegally shot or illegally handed off to someone else, do we not prosecute because the proof was not properly obtained? or do we serve justice based on the clear proof.

I'm sorry but that isn't how law works. You don't create laws that can only be applied in certain circumstances and not to everyone.

do you mean like how one person could get caught with classified documents and end up in jail, while another could end up with tens of thousands of classified documents and run for president?
I think I understand.

 

[Lewdog]

Why does it matter who hacked those emails? The content of those emails should matter, right? Dems are playing a distraction game for idiots and idiots are buying it.

exactly. If someone murders somebody, and a video of it happening was illegally shot or illegally handed off to someone else, do we not prosecute because the proof was not properly obtained? or do we serve justice based on the clear proof.

I'm sorry but that isn't how law works. You don't create laws that can only be applied in certain circumstances and not to everyone.

do you mean like how one person could get caught with classified documents and end up in jail, while another could end up with tens of thousands of classified documents and run for president?
I think I understand.

No... I mean like how laws are made with the intent that it is better that 100 guilty people should be allowed to go free because of rights afforded all Americans verse ONE innocent person going to jail because of not having the rights we deserve.