(07-11-2017 05:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Respectfully, OO, I think you're way too concerned with where you think my questions are going, or what you think my "agenda" is, such that you're signposting rebuttals to arguments I'm not even making. I don't think you need to be this protective of or invested in your position. If Campaign A willingly gets opposition research from a foreign government so that it can gain political advantage in an election, and such information is knowingly the product of illegal activity, including espionage, then is Campaign A guilty of a crime of some sort--perhaps some form of treason? I don't know the statutes in play, but my guess is that there would likely be a crime under those circumstances. Same would be true, in my mind, if Campaign B did it as well.

Again, I don't know if any of that occurred here with respect to the Trump campaign. Perhaps very few people who are outside of D.C. know. I feel like you believe you're one of them, such that you're sure that no investigation is even necessary. But I happen to think it's worthy of investigation--as do many Republicans, even.

If the investigation turns up emptyhanded, I think that's a good thing.

I think including espionage in your definition of illegal activity taints the question. Espionage is many degrees of seriousness removed from simple hacking, and there is no hint that spies were hacking the DNC computers looking for national secrets. Speeding is illegal activity. DWI is illegal activity. Lumping the two together as equals would taint the question. There is a difference.

Hacking is a crime. But is using the stolen information or publishing it also a crime?

Hypothetical: A hacker gets into the Mayor's computer and discovers kiddie porn. What should he do? Report it to the police? Should they accept the proceeds of a crime? Report it to a news organization, and let them publish it? Should they accept it? (after all it is stolen) Sit on it, respecting the Mayor's privacy?

Those are much closer to what I see happening or alleged here. No hint of espionage. Nothing classified on the Mayor's computer - or the DNC's. Would this knowledge influence the mayoral election? Hell yes - and that's a good thing. Might prevent the election of a pedophile. Presenting the truth to the electorate is always a good thing. (anybody disagree?) A better informed electorate is always a good thing. (anybody disagree?) Now does that change if the hacker is a Canadian? An Israeli? A Russian? A Ukrainian? I see no reason for that to matter. As long as the truth is presented, without editing, I fail to see the harm. The truth is the truth. Amazing to me how many people think publishing the truth is treason. Presenting the truth is why Freedom of the Press is so important.

I think the emails had little effect anyway. What did we learn? That the DNC stacked the deck for Hillary? That Hillary had no idea of what her message was? Nothing there that most people didn't already know. Much more important wer two slips by Hillary - "deplorables" and "What, with a rag?"
The first showed her contempt for Middle America - Middle in any sense of the word - and the latter showed she thought the whole thing was a big joke. It would all go away once she was President.

I cannot see the logic of Trump asking Putin to steal the emails for him and then wanting him to publish them without change. Was Trump so prescient that he knew long before that the truth was bad enough? Why ask Putin to do it? Couldn't he find an American to do it? We don't have any good hackers here, or he couldn't afford them? I keep.asking for somebody to explain that logic to me. So far, no takers.