Flashback: "Russia, If You're Listening..."

[SkepticThinker]

But there quite a few differences here.

For one thing, I see absolutely zero evidence that Putin is "trying to take down the US." I know that there are those who are desperately trying to build up a case in that regard, but even if all the allegations about influencing the election are true, it still wouldn't prove a desire to take down the US. It could only mean a desire to have influence, which is no different than any other monied interest lobbying for power and influence in our government.

I don't know if Trump has given anything to Putin, but as for what Putin can do in return, his support might be instrumental in the US trying to deal with Iran, North Korea, or other countries with which the US has had problems. As I've said over and over and over many times already, the main reason all these small countries are able to act as they do is because they play the superpowers off against each other.

Then you're simply not paying attention. They meddled in the elections (and continue to do so) including spamming social media with propaganda, they hacked the DNC, they tried getting into the voter rolls, and now they want to interrogate American ambassadors who they think have done them wrong. I don't know what else to say.

There is also a major significant difference between the two scenarios: Trump was negotiating from strength, while Chamberlain was negotiating from weakness. The reason the British were in that spot was because they let their military forces wither on the vine while Germany was rearming at breakneck speed. In 1938, Chamberlain was between a rock and a hard place. He needed to buy time, and that's all what Appeasement was about.

So, in a very real sense, "capitulating" to Hitler at that time and place did work out for the world. If they declared war on Hitler before they were ready, Germany might very well have won and that would be the end of that.

Sorry you lost me when you said, "Trump was negotiating from strength while Chamberlain was negotiating from weakness." What strength? He kissed Putin's *** like he has been doing since he campaigned for President. H

 

[fantome profane]

For one thing, I see absolutely zero evidence that Putin is "trying to take down the US."

Hitler started with Austria and Poland. Putin started with Crimea. No, Putin is not Hitler and the situations are not exactly the same. Nothing is ever exactly the same. But they are analogous, and we should learn from history.

 

[Estro Felino]

Hitler started with Austria and Poland. Putin started with Crimea. No, Putin is not Hitler and the situations are not exactly the same. Nothing is ever exactly the same. But they are analogous, and we should learn from history.

Please...go to Crimea and ask the people there if they want to be with Russia or with Ukraine.
I hope the will of a people is relevant to you, btw

 

[fantome profane]

Please...go to Crimea and ask the people there if they want to be with Russia or with Ukraine.
I hope the will of a people is relevant to you, btw

Then they should have held a legitimate referendum with international oversight before separating from Ukraine and joining Russia.

I am Canadian, I know what a separation referendum should be like.

 

[Estro Felino]

Then they should have held a legitimate referendum with international oversight before separating from Ukraine and joining Russia.

I am Canadian, I know what a separation referendum should be like.

They already held a referendum...and btw...we don't hear them complaining about being a Russian federal district...

I just want to underline that our PM considers the annexation legitimate, and wants to work on the removal of the sanctions

 

[Stevicus]

Hitler started with Austria and Poland. Putin started with Crimea. No, Putin is not Hitler and the situations are not exactly the same. Nothing is ever exactly the same. But they are analogous, and we should learn from history.

I agree that we should learn from history, but I would still maintain that German history is different from Russian history. Crimea itself also has a bit of history that should be looked at when evaluating the overall situation.

I'm not saying that it was right. They could have handled the situation more peacefully, but it hardly appears to be erupting into a world war.

It could be argued that the Russian-Crimean-Ukrainian situation is more analogous to Britain-Ireland-Northern Ireland than it is to anything about Hitler.

 

[Falvlun]

Then it's their prerogative to try the case in court. If/when that ever happens and a verdict is reached, then we'll see. If the 2018 elections go the Democrats' way, then they may have enough votes to impeach Trump. But I see no point in rushing to judgment here.

Why do you believe the courts are the only arbiter of “hard evidence”? For example, published scientific papers are hard evidence, but they are not court-arbitrated.

Connecting “hard evidence” with the courts seems to be an unreasonable and unrealistic goalpost. Every US intelligence agency, various US departments, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Special Counsel Investigation have concluded that Russia meddled in our election and hacked various systems. Various foreign agencies have also provided evidence for this. They all have extensive evidence supporting their conclusions. This is certainly hard evidence. You can not just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t exist.

 

[Falvlun]

Within the context and considering the time when it was said it appears to be sarcasm.

“Just a joke, bro!”

-the President’s supporters, when explaining why then-candidate Trump appealed to a non-allied foreign government to illegally obtain material on a US citizen.

 

[Stevicus]

Why do you believe the courts are the only arbiter of “hard evidence”?

I didn't say they were the "only" arbiter of hard evidence. It's just that their job is to review evidence in criminal cases and make a determination. That's just the system we live under. I didn't create it.

For example, published scientific papers are hard evidence, but they are not court-arbitrated.

Connecting “hard evidence” with the courts seems to be an unreasonable and unrealistic goalpost. Every US intelligence agency, various US departments, both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, and the Special Counsel Investigation have concluded that Russia meddled in our election and hacked various systems. Various foreign agencies have also provided evidence for this. They all have extensive evidence supporting their conclusions. This is certainly hard evidence. You can not just wave your hand and pretend it doesn’t exist.

I'm not hand waving anything here, but I do know that cops don't get to try criminal cases themselves (and by extension, that includes intelligence agencies). That's what the courts are for. Why are you so against the idea of having all of this presented in open court?

 

[Falvlun]

I didn't say they were the "only" arbiter of hard evidence. It's just that their job is to review evidence in criminal cases and make a determination. That's just the system we live under. I didn't create it.

I'm not hand waving anything here, but I do know that cops don't get to try criminal cases themselves (and by extension, that includes intelligence agencies). That's what the courts are for. Why are you so against the idea of having all of this presented in open court?

I am not against this going to the courts. I am saying that that isn’t the only criteria to determine whether “hard evidence” exists.

This isn’t “just” a criminal case and the courts are not the sole arbiters to determine the existence of evidence. That’s a ridiculous position— investigations produce evidence, not the courts. And we have a myriad of investigations that have produced a mountain of evidence that have all come to the same exact conclusion.

Your position that “hard evidence” can’t exist unless it’s been presented in court is a ridiculous standard. Our intelligence agencies, our departmental investigations, our senate and House investigations, and our special counsel investigation are all hard evidence.

 

[Falvlun]

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about @Stevicus

“In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

“"We were able to determine that the scanning and probing of voter registration databases was coming from the Russian government." Source

This is hard evidence from the Department of Homeland Security. This is not something that would go to the courts— it’s a report of what happened, by the DHS. The courts are not applicable here.

 

[Stevicus]

Your position that “hard evidence” can’t exist unless it’s been presented in court is a ridiculous standard.

This isn't my position. Are you even bothering to read what I post?

 

[Falvlun]

This isn't my position. Are you even bothering to read what I post?

So do you believe that “hard evidence” can exist sans a court verdict?

 

[Stevicus]

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about @Stevicus

“In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Jeanette Manfra, the head of cybersecurity at the Department of Homeland Security, said she couldn't talk about classified information publicly, but in 2016, "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

“"We were able to determine that the scanning and probing of voter registration databases was coming from the Russian government." Source

This is hard evidence from the Department of Homeland Security. This is not something that would go to the courts— it’s a report of what happened, by the DHS. The courts are not applicable here.

So, she can't talk about classified information publicly, but she does so anyway.

Are we talking about actual "hard evidence," or is it just a report? Is the "hard evidence" classified and inaccessible for public examination? Are we just supposed to take their word for it?

And why wouldn't they take it to court? If all of this is true and the Russians did this, why not bring it before the UN or the World Court and use the mechanisms of justice that we've all agreed to by international treaty? What's the problem with going through proper channels to resolve this issue?

 

[Stevicus]

So do you believe that “hard evidence” can exist sans a court verdict?

I believe it can exist, sure. But evidence is not the same thing as proof. Either way, the evidence should be made public and accessible for open examination.

 

[Falvlun]

So, she can't talk about classified information publicly, but she does so anyway.

Why would you assume what she said was classified— as opposed to the reasonable conclusion that she stated the part that was unclassified?

Are we talking about actual "hard evidence," or is it just a report? Is the "hard evidence" classified and inaccessible for public examination? Are we just supposed to take their word for it?

Why would “just a report” not be “hard evidence”? Since you are the one with such an odd concept of what does or does not constitute “hard evidence” then perhaps you should further define what you mean.

As for me, yes, a report by the head of Cybersecurity at DHS would be hard evidence. Do you think she is lying? And if so, do you think that everyone else who works in that department are covering for her lie? Such webs of conspiracy you’d need to weave! Not to mention, her report is not singular— it literally corresponds to what everyone else has found.

And why wouldn't they take it to court? If all of this is true and the Russians did this, why not bring it before the UN or the World Court and use the mechanisms of justice that we've all agreed to by international treaty? What's the problem with going through proper channels to resolve this issue?

Because that’s not how this works. Every investigation doesn’t end up in court— mostly because they aren’t criminal investigations but rather investigations for knowledge.

We are going through the proper channels. The house and senate have reviewed our intelligence agencies findings and have concluded that russia was behind various hacks and election meddling. Our Congress has sanctioned Russia for its wrongdoing. A court is not the only proper channel, and it might not be the proper channel at all. And we certainly don’t require it to know we have hard evidence that the Russian government was behind various hacks and meddling.

 

[Falvlun]

I believe it can exist, sure. But evidence is not the same thing as proof. Either way, the evidence should be made public and accessible for open examination.

It is. The special counsel, intelligence reports, house and senate committee reports, all are available.

As for evidence vs proof, don’t change the goal posts. We were talking of evidence not “proof” (whatever you mean by that). You don’t believe “hard evidence” exists. You further implied that it couldn’t exist until the courts weighed in. Even if courts weighed in, that wouldn’t be 100% god-almighty certain proof.

 

[Stanyon]

It is. The special counsel, intelligence reports, house and senate committee reports, all are available.

As for evidence vs proof, don’t change the goal posts. We were talking of evidence not “proof” (whatever you mean by that). You don’t believe “hard evidence” exists. You further implied that it couldn’t exist until the courts weighed in. Even if courts weighed in, that wouldn’t be 100% god-almighty certain proof.

When Mueller indicted twelve Russians it was assumed that since an indictment was made it implies that they have enough evidence to convince a panel or jury of guilt- do you agree with this?

Keeping that in mind, why then when Russian lawyers showed up to defend against the indictments did their visas get called into question and the Mueller team said they weren't ready?

 

[Falvlun]

I'd ask the same of the Democrats back in the 1996 campaign. Why China ?

Could we maybe keep the kneejerk whataboutisms confined to the last 20 years?

You know what I love about this? Attempting to downplay Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton requires them to dredge up a 20 year old occurrence that must have been so egregious that they are still talking about it 20 years later.

 

[Falvlun]

When Mueller indicted twelve Russians it was assumed that since an indictment was made it implies that they have enough evidence to convince a panel or jury of guilt- do you agree with this?

I agree that an indictment indicates readiness for trial.

Keeping that in mind, why then when Russian lawyers showed up to defend against the indictments did their visas get called into question and the Mueller team said they weren't ready?

Do you have a source? I haven’t heard about this yet. From what I understand, a trial can’t happen unless the defendants are extradited— which obviously, Russia won’t do.