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

[Stevicus]

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

The point is, they're clearly strategically and deliberately planning what they reveal and how they present things to the public.

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.

What is your meaning when you use such phrases as "odd concept"? What are you driving at here?

A report is merely an observation, a written account of the evidence - not the evidence itself.

As for me, yes, a report by the head of Cybersecurity at DHS would be hard evidence. Do you think she is lying?

There's no evidence either way. She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth.

And if so, do you think that everyone else who works in that department are covering for her lie?

We don't know, do we? There's no way of telling either way, but I'm certainly not going to jump just because they say something. Remember, these departments have a track record and a reputation for lying. They're in the intelligence business. That's what they do.

Such webs of conspiracy you’d need to weave!

Nope, just judging them by their history and reputation.

Not to mention, her report is not singular— it literally corresponds to what everyone else has found.

"Everyone else," huh? 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.

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.

Knowledge for what purpose?

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.

The point is, since this hard evidence exists, why not use it and present it in a proper forum? We're accusing the Russians of committing a crime? Don't they have a right to face their accuser? Don't they have a right to a forensic examination of the evidence (not just reports) and question how the intelligence agencies reached their conclusions?

Remember that even the intelligence agencies aren't really going out on a limb here. They use weasel words like "we strongly believe" which indicates that they're still just speculating and they don't really know for certain.

I just think if we're going to push this issue and heighten international tensions, we should have more to go on than just a "belief," even if it's a belief held by our wonderful, irreproachable, and infallible government.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You know what I love about this? Attempting to downplay Trump asking Russia to hack Clinton requires them to dredge up a 16 year old occurrence that must have been so egregious that they are still talking about it 20 years later.

You know why? It's because history repeats itself. Only there are new players now that tend to think the same thing is somehow ok by their own past actions they were called out for while villifying it at the same time right only because of the opposition.

Had it been different , and it was the left instead of Trump and Russia, I would gamble that it would still be okay with the left as it had been in the past as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Stanyon]

I agree that an indictment indicates readiness for trial.

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.

If I remember correctly it was back in May or June, will have to get back with you on the source. If this is true, which I have little reason to doubt it, this tells me several things:
The Mueller team doesn't have the evidence to support their claims.

They didn't expect Russians to actually show up and want a trial

The indictments were for show/pr

 

[Falvlun]

The point is, they're clearly strategically and deliberately planning what they reveal and how they present things to the public.



What is your meaning when you use such phrases as "odd concept"? What are you driving at here?

A report is merely an observation, a written account of the evidence - not the evidence itself.



There's no evidence either way. She could be lying, or she could be telling the truth.



We don't know, do we? There's no way of telling either way, but I'm certainly not going to jump just because they say something. Remember, these departments have a track record and a reputation for lying. They're in the intelligence business. That's what they do.



Nope, just judging them by their history and reputation.



"Everyone else," huh? 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong.



Knowledge for what purpose?



The point is, since this hard evidence exists, why not use it and present it in a proper forum? We're accusing the Russians of committing a crime? Don't they have a right to face their accuser? Don't they have a right to a forensic examination of the evidence (not just reports) and question how the intelligence agencies reached their conclusions?

Remember that even the intelligence agencies aren't really going out on a limb here. They use weasel words like "we strongly believe" which indicates that they're still just speculating and they don't really know for certain.

I just think if we're going to push this issue and heighten international tensions, we should have more to go on than just a "belief," even if it's a belief held by our wonderful, irreproachable, and infallible government.

I’m sorry. Solipsism doesn’t appeal to me.

Your unwillingness to accept the plethora of evidence is unfortunately all too common these days. I doubt anything I can say will sway you from a position that is so removed from reality.

 

[Falvlun]

You know why? It's because history repeats itself. Only there are new players now that tend to think the same thing is somehow ok by their own past actions they were called out for while villifying it at the same time right only because of the opposition.

Had it been different , and it was the left instead of Trump and Russia, I would gamble that it would still be okay with the left as it had been in the past as far as I'm concerned.

So you’re okay with Trump doing this because democrats would be okay with their guy doing it? What sort of defense is that? “Hey everyone! My guy is just as bad as their guy and I am just as bad as them!”

 

[Stevicus]

I’m sorry. Solipsism doesn’t appeal to me.

Your unwillingness to accept the plethora of evidence is unfortunately all too common these days. I doubt anything I can say will sway you from a position that is so removed from reality.

Fine, whatever.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So you’re okay with Trump doing this because democrats would be okay with their guy doing it? What sort of defense is that? “Hey everyone! My guy is just as bad as their guy and I am just as bad as them!”

You know it's going to happen once political sides switch eventually .

Politics pretty much have been relegated to being nothing more than a big **** wagging contest .

 

[Falvlun]

You know it's going to happen once political sides switch eventually .

Politics pretty much have been relegated to being nothing more than a big **** wagging contest .

And people who pretend nothing is wrong when their guy does something, because they are worried the other side will let their guy get away with it, are the ones who made it this way.

If it bothers you, then don’t friggin support Trump when he does it. Stop the cycle.