The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?
Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

Depends on which one is right. In my case, they're both lying. I don't have a partner.

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

And sometimes your best friend has an underlying agenda. I mean lets face it, the Fusion GPS Brits (the Brits being our supposed best friends) certainly had an agenda to push. Which they did.

Your statement absolutely glosses over that, doesnt it?

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

But where is the indication that the Trump campaign ever got any information or used it? I thought the information was released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign.

(06-19-2019 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But where is the indication that the Trump campaign ever got any information or used it? I thought the information was released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign.

That’s why I didn’t suggest they did. I’m focused on them being contacted and how they reacted, or the hypothetical we’ve been going back and forth on regarding how criminal evidence is obtained.

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

And yet again you gloss over the mad rush to jump into bed with Fusion GPS in your 'it only fits one side' analysis

Quote:You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

Lolz.... Considering how the Steele dossier was used as a predicate for an absolute massive invasion of at least one individual's 4th amendment rights (Carter Page) and the predicate for the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane, yes, I think at least some of us are very much aware of those 4th amendment issues you are now so 'prescient' about. /sarcasm off

I am glad to hear that concern, but perhaps some of the 'Get Trump' folks might behoove that, as I dont think I have *ever* heard any issue about the methodology in being used in that manner in that respect.

I am glad that there is such a massive respect for the 4th amendment, that is, when it was utterly and studiously ignored from the 'Get Trump' side of the debate in the last 2+ years.

(06-19-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But where is the indication that the Trump campaign ever got any information or used it? I thought the information was released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign.

That’s why I didn’t suggest they did. I’m focused on them being contacted and how they reacted, or the hypothetical we’ve been going back and forth on regarding how criminal evidence is obtained.

But while that may rise to the level of you don't like it, it doesn't really rise much further, certainly not to the level of being a crime.

So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

(06-19-2019 07:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 07:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But where is the indication that the Trump campaign ever got any information or used it? I thought the information was released by Wikileaks, not the Trump campaign.

That’s why I didn’t suggest they did. I’m focused on them being contacted and how they reacted, or the hypothetical we’ve been going back and forth on regarding how criminal evidence is obtained.

But while that may rise to the level of you don't like it, it doesn't really rise much further, certainly not to the level of being a crime.

And I didn't suggest it did...

The whole point of the Mueller investigation was to look into that issue and to come to a conclusion.

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

In what way did Clinton intentionally use false information? And was information known to be false? And do we even know if Clinton knew about the Steele dossier and its contents (this is the same kind of distinction that I kept making regarding Trump and his campaign when talking about collusion)?

Why do you think what the Clinton campaign did was much worse than what Trump did?

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 05:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Once again, I don’t see the problem with the source. What if a Canadian says that when he was in DC, he saw prostitutes delivered to the WH. And when you run with this, it is shown to be true. Are you now liable to go to prison because you got this from a “foreigner”? Is this treason?

Like news, real is better than fake. Doesn’t matter the source.

Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives

I'm confused as to whether negligent handling of things that are supposed to be handled carefully is illegal.

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your best friend says your partner is cheating on you. Your worst enemy says your partner is cheating on you.

I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

(06-19-2019 11:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives

I'm confused as to whether negligent handling of things that are supposed to be handled carefully is illegal.

I don't think we need to go down that rabbit hole again, but that is why people are still in a tizzy over Clinton's emails...

(06-19-2019 12:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 09:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The argument is the inclusion of the word 'adversary' in the posit by 93.

What differences are there between information obtained by Russia vs information generated say, by, a British national. It isnt like some or most Brits won't have an underlying agenda of their own, right?

My question is why the magic line at 'foreign' source overall.

This. SOrry, but I thought it was clear in context,

I'd also add that the term 'adversary' is a political hot potato. I mean, we spied on Germany, remember? Are they an adversary? In some regards, yes.

There are people who are citizens of this country who want it to fail (and some taking efforts to make it happen) more than any other nation in the world. Russia doesn't want us to fail, that would put too much of a burden on the rest of the world... but they do not want us to prosper.

(06-18-2019 07:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess my partner is cheating on me.

I don’t see your point.

Agree with OO. Isn't the real question whether or not the information is true and not 'whom is reporting it'? You certainly might be more inclined to believe your friend than your enemy, but just because it comes from an enemy doesn't mean it isn't true or was learned via illegal means. In simplest terms, the Russians certainly know if Trump and company colluded with them. If they called the DNC and offered proof, you don't think they'd use that information? If the DNC instead called the FBI, what would the FBI do except investigate something they have already investigated and have no jurisdiction to compel testimony.

We’ve historically seen campaigns, when offered information on their opponents from potentially untrustworthy sources, turn that over to the FBI instead of use it (example: Al Gore).

What matters in these cases is the veracity of information and the motivation of those handing out the information. Would it be more likely that your friend is telling you the truth and for a good reason than your adversary? The point is that the Trump campaign, at best, was negligent in the manner of which they handled being contacted by Russian government representatives, and that y’all seem too eager to try and excuse that behavior.

You’re all also getting into a horrible gray area regarding not caring where or how information came to light. It’s not a far stretch to violating someone’s 4th amendment rights when you suggest it doesn’t matter how evidence is obtained.

4th amendment applies to the government, not citizens. It's not gray to me at all... and 2 centuries of examples make it clear

(06-19-2019 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
So, what if my partner is cheating with my best friend?

There see,s to be an assumption that the world is divided into those who love us (American citizens) and those who want to do us dirty (all foreigners).

Truth speaks for itself.

I would not advocate breaking in to get it. But if a burglar finds evidence of a nefarious plot, I want to know.

What the Clinton campaign did was so much worse than what the Trumps did. Clinton intentionally used false info.

Which is why I brought up that Germany is sometimes an adversary

93, answer me this....

Suppose that the Russians had evidence that the Koch brothers had completely rigged the voting booths in key counties that lead to 'stealing' the election. Who is our enemy here? The Russians? or the Koch brothers? Of course you'd turn it over to the authorities, but you'd also use it.

Second supposition, what if instead of that, 'what they had' was a video of Trump speaking at a Klan rally... which isn't illegal, but could certainly impact voters? Would you inform authorities of this and why? Of course you would use it.

And again, would Russia be our adversary here?



If you want to argue that because it's Russia, we should just ignore them, I'm wondering why Obama severely chastised Romney for suggesting that, and then indicated to Russia that he'd have 'much more flexibility after the election'. Why are we being flexible with our enemies?

I think the base supposition that Russia is the devil is where the argument starts to fail. As Bill Clinton famously said, it depends on what the definition of 'Is' is.

In all instances you inform the FBI that you have been contacted by representatives of the Russian government and pass this off to them. You don't use the info for personal gain in an election in either instance, as you don't know (i) the veracity of the information or (ii) the motivations of the people sending you that information.

How hard is that?

Why dont you ask Fusion GPS about the bolded edicts, or for that matter Perkins Coie, or for that matter the DNC, or for that matter the Clinton for President organization, or for that matter the fing FBI working with the Obama national security apparatus.

Precisely. How hard is it?

Cant wait to hear the rationale of how that is so totally different. Or on the other hand, it wont be addressed. 50/50 on which course is taken.