US Officially Blames Russia

I'll be interested in knowing what Clinton has to do with Russia putting Trump into the oval office, which is sort of the point of this thread.
 
NoahFence said:
I'll be interested in knowing what Clinton has to do with Russia putting Trump into the oval office, which is sort of the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Well, Cheeto Benito was voted in fairly. Keep that in mind. Work against it.

In the long term, we'll win.
 
Argumemnon said:
Gee, there's another poster who thinks I can strawman myself. :rolleyes:



What a strange thing to say, since what I said is this:



Emphasis added. We're BOTH talking about the evidence available.
Click to expand...

The discussion has been over crimes she got away with. Raising the bar to conviction is the problem that seems to be an irresistible lure for many people here in this thread.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The discussion has been over crimes she got away with.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that entail looking at the evidence and concluding that a crime has been committed in the first place? The FBI, who are kind of experts on the matter, say that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that it has, and I agree with them based on the evidence I've seen.

That being said, she certainly was careless with the e-mail business.
 
Molinaro said:
All day yesterday the lead story from Fox and Daily Caller were the fact that intelligence community leaked the information. They consider the information revealed in those leaks as less important.

Yet, with wikileaks information, it was all about the content of the leaks and the fact that the leaks themselves took place were irrelevant.

The degree of partisanship, and hypocritical behavior on the right is astounding. And disgusting.
Click to expand...

That cuts both ways. If I brought up Clinton's statements to Wall Street or the pandering for donations at Martha's Vineyard all I'd get back is "WHY ARE YOU SPREADING RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA?!"
 
Argumemnon said:
Wouldn't that entail looking at the evidence and concluding that a crime has been committed in the first place? The FBI, who are kind of experts on the matter, say that they don't have enough evidence to conclude that it has, and I agree with them based on the evidence I've seen.
Click to expand...

Once again, Comey stated that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case, not that there wasn't evidence that the crime took place. His bar is "beyond reasonable doubt" combined with a jury pool that is overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. That's a hard case to prove in a court.

But I'm not in a court. I don't have to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I can make a call based on a 50%> likelihood, the same standard that the Dept of Ed wants universities to use against students accused of rape (along with a host of due process violations).

Perhaps you need to be reminded of the evidence. The FBI reports states that Clinton claims concussion related amnesia explains why she can't remember what the parenthetical markings (c), (s), (ts) etc, mean. A Clinton campaign aide later said she never told the FBI that.

Who is lying?
The FBI? Clinton to the FBI? Her aide?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Once again, Comey stated that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case, not that there wasn't evidence that the crime took place. His bar is "beyond reasonable doubt" combined with a jury pool that is overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. That's a hard case to prove in a court.

But I'm not in a court. I don't have to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I can make a call based on a 50%> likelihood, the same standard that the Dept of Ed wants universities to use against students accused of rape (along with a host of due process violations).

Perhaps you need to be reminded of the evidence. The FBI reports states that Clinton claims concussion related amnesia explains why she can't remember what the parenthetical markings (c), (s), (ts) etc, mean. A Clinton campaign aide later said she never told the FBI that.

Who is lying?
The FBI? Clinton to the FBI? Her aide?
Click to expand...
Given what's transpired so far in Trump's administration, all the above seems pretty minor, no?
 
Newtons Bit said:
Once again, Comey stated that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case, not that there wasn't evidence that the crime took place. His bar is "beyond reasonable doubt" combined with a jury pool that is overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. That's a hard case to prove in a court.
Click to expand...

And that's how things work because that's how you protect the innocent against false accusations at the cost of letting some guilty ones go.

But I'm not in a court. I don't have to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Click to expand...

I keep reading that on this forum and I find it disconcerting. Why wouldn't you prefer using a time-tested method of giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused? There's a reason why it's the prefered method in the modern world, so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think holding themselves up to that standard is such a waste of their time and energy. Do you really need to pass judgment? I sure don't.

Perhaps you need to be reminded of the evidence.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I do.

The FBI reports states that Clinton claims concussion related amnesia explains why she can't remember what the parenthetical markings (c), (s), (ts) etc, mean. A Clinton campaign aide later said she never told the FBI that.
Click to expand...

That's obviously a lie if that's indeed what they claimed, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether a crime has been committed.
 
Distracted1 said:
In each of your cited examples, although convictions were not achieved charges were still brought. Indicating that they had more evidence to support a conviction than not- at least in the eyes of the prosecutor.
I find it hard to accept that Clinton would not have been charged if as much evidence to support a conviction existed against her as did in your examples. Ergo, bad analogy.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the next investigation or the next to that will find the evidence of her guilt, I mean we know she is guilty!
 
Argumemnon said:
And that's how things work because that's how you protect the innocent against false accusations at the cost of letting some guilty ones go.



I keep reading that on this forum and I find it disconcerting. Why wouldn't you prefer using a time-tested method of giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused? There's a reason why it's the prefered method in the modern world, so I'm at a loss as to why so many people here think holding themselves up to that standard is such a waste of their time and energy. Do you really need to pass judgment? I sure don't.
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss here. Do you think I'm saying that Clinton should have a lower bar in criminal courts than "reasonable doubt", or do you think I'm talking about calls that we as individuals can make about someones behavior? Keep in mind, the latter influences who we vote for in elections. Are you comfortable voting for someone who has had serious criminal investigations into their conduct as a government official (I'm not talking Trump vs. Clinton, I just mean in general, or in the case of the primaries where there are many different candidates).

That's obviously a lie if that's indeed what they claimed, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether a crime has been committed.
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely does. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Now I'm pretty sure (50%> standard) that she did in fact lie about not knowing what those parenthetical meant. I don't think I could actually vote guilty on a criminal jury based on what I've seen, but it's more likely than not that she lied.
 
NoahFence said:
Given what's transpired so far in Trump's administration, all the above seems pretty minor, no?
Click to expand...

I think she lied and broke the law. However there's "bad", and "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WHAT ARE WE DOING, WHY DID YOU NOMINATE THIS TURDMUFFIN". Trump is the latter.
 
Looks as if Putin might have made a major miscalculation in he did not see beyond getting Trump elected. He did not see that the facts of his support and meddling would come out, and would make lifting the sanctions or any other favorable action toward Russia a political impossibility, with Trump getting major opposition from within his own party.
 
dudalb said:
Looks as if Putin might have made a major miscalculation in he did not see beyond getting Trump elected. He did not see that the facts of his support and meddling would come out, and would make lifting the sanctions or any other favorable action toward Russia a political impossibility, with Trump getting major opposition from within his own party.
Click to expand...


He probably didn't have the capacity to grasp just how mind-bendingly stupid Trump and his sycophants actually are.

The idea that someone could be that much of an idiot and still manage to get where Trump has gotten is a bit tough to swallow.
 
"I wanted a stupid puppet as POTUS,but not one THAT stupid!"

I also think he might not have understood that the POTUS does not have total power the way he does.
 
dudalb said:
Looks as if Putin might have made a major miscalculation in he did not see beyond getting Trump elected. He did not see that the facts of his support and meddling would come out, and would make lifting the sanctions or any other favorable action toward Russia a political impossibility, with Trump getting major opposition from within his own party.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether Putin's goal was getting a puppet in the White House or just to destabilize the American political scene. If his goal was the latter, he's already won.
 
Cleon said:
That depends on whether Putin's goal was getting a puppet in the White House or just to destabilize the American political scene. If his goal was the latter, he's already won.
Click to expand...

Trump winning was gravy. His goal was to make western style democracy look ridiculous. Candidate Trump being seen as a credible candidate did that with aplomb. Trump winning proves that it can result in poor outcomes because enough people can make poor decisions in unison.
 
quadraginta said:
He probably didn't have the capacity to grasp just how mind-bendingly stupid Trump and his sycophants actually are.

The idea that someone could be that much of an idiot and still manage to get where Trump has gotten is a bit tough to swallow.
Click to expand...

Doesn't he have a first-class research department? Trump's mind bending stupidity has been evidenced over the years, and lots of other folk had put it together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom