Mueller Investigation pt5

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we all know by now, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."

I am responding to two other statements I've seen here. Namely, 1) There's no evidence the Russian Government was involved in the hacking of Podesta and DNC: "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations..." 2) There's no evidence the Russians did anything illegal: "...the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States..."

Related, as I heard Sen. Angus King say on "Firing Line" the other night, "It's not conceivable," that all this Russian activity -- the hacking, turning the hacked emails over to WikiLeaks, spending tens of millions of dollars on social media platforms, with Russians sometimes pretending to be Americans -- that it's not conceivable they would do this without, not just Vladimir Putin's knowledge, but without his approval.
 
BobTheCoward said:
"Should" is debatable.
Click to expand...

Everything is debatable with you.

11925ca2c4b992a3f.jpg
 
theprestige said:
Required means literally someone should do that is the point of the word required.
Click to expand...

No.

Required things aren't always something someone should do.

Are you intentionally planning to call "Godwin"? It's trivial to prove this point by citing that Nazi Germany required Jews to declare their wealth. It's not something they should have done.
 
newyorkguy said:
I am responding to two other statements I've seen here. Namely, 1) There's no evidence the Russian Government was involved in the hacking of Podesta and DNC: "The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations..." 2) There's no evidence the Russians did anything illegal: "...the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States..."
Click to expand...

Who said that? Not me, although many of your posts seemed to respond to me. Bit of ambiguity since you wouldn't quote whoever you were responding to, but I think it's a reasonable inference absent any clarification from you.

I said that there's no evidence that Russia obtained the information about Hillary that it offered to the Trump campaign through illegal means. Neither of your points is relevant to what I said since there's no evidence that the information about Hillary that Russia offered the Trump campaign was obtained through hacking. The fact that other information about Hillary was obtained through illegal hacking isn't relevant to what I said, since that other information isn't what was on offer. Hell, there isn't even any evidence that the information they offered even exists (although I'm willing to accept claims that it does - would you like to claim so?).
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No.

Required things aren't always something someone should do.

Are you intentionally planning to call "Godwin"? It's trivial to prove this point by citing that Nazi Germany required Jews to declare their wealth. It's not something they should have done.
Click to expand...

This is the stupidest argument you could be having.

Yes, according to us that's not what they should have done. According to them it was.

According to the drafters of the special counsel statutes, Barr did what he should have done. If you take exception to what Barr did, then you're taking exception to the statute. Which is fine, you're free to do so, it's possible for statutes to be bad. But that's where the actual relevant argument is. Not this semantic point scoring bull ****.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think we all know by now, "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."
Click to expand...

And that is veeeeeery specific wording. Its just the sort of wording you might use if there was some other entity, not the actual Russian government, that you are trying to sidestep away from talking about.. such as

Viktor Vekselberg
Aleksandr Torshin
The Internet Research Agency
Guccifer 2.0
The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies
Konstantin Kilimnik
Viktor Yanukovych

et al

These entities are not actually the Russian government, but for all intents an purposes, they might as well be.

Remember folks, "plausible deniability".
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is the stupidest argument you could be having.

Yes, according to us that's not what they should have done. According to them it was.

According to the drafters of the special counsel statutes, Barr did what he should have done. If you take exception to what Barr did, then you're taking exception to the statute. Which is fine, you're free to do so, it's possible for statutes to be bad. But that's where the actual relevant argument is. Not this semantic point scoring bull ****.
Click to expand...

Actually, we are in a semantic argument.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We shouldn't follow every obligation. Sometimes a person should choose to violate an obligation.
Click to expand...

Regale us then with an explanation why the special counsel and the attorney general of the united states should violate the law.

and if it is because resistance grifter rachel maddow should be deemed to not be an unbelievable lying fraud, I am going to disagree.

regale us
 
The Big Dog said:
I am explaining that he is doing it because he should, and that the resistance grifter idiot is lying about it.
Click to expand...

Your pathetic slander dodges Maddow's question: Why should he override Mueller's considerable expertise in what ought to be redacted? Seems to me, only an idiot wouldn't be suspicious, but suit yourself.
 
The Big Dog said:
Obligated to? Required to? Statutorily required to?

Take your pick.

Maddow was lying about it and her own network’s crawl was proving it while she gaslighting people
Click to expand...

This is not true. Neither is he statutorily required to or that Maddow was lying. You're 0-2 on that post.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I

They did not do it on the behest of trump. Trump asked for something, and they didn't do that thing.

Did the Washington Post break the law when they accepted the Pentagon papers? That was receipt of stolen goods.
Click to expand...
Thought you said you read the Pentagon Papers. If you had you would know that neither the NY Times nor the WA Po were found prosecutable because the First Amendment is specifically about a free press As long as the reporters didn't directly steal the material there was nothing criminal about the press printing it.
 
The Big Dog said:
Regale us then with an explanation why the special counsel and the attorney general of the united states should violate the law.

and if it is because resistance grifter rachel maddow should be deemed to not be an unbelievable lying fraud, I am going to disagree.

regale us
Click to expand...

More falsehood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom