(06-17-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 11:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 11:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-17-2019 10:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Personally, I have never seen the problem with getting oppo research from foreigners as long as the research was factual and true.
russians

What about if this research is obtained via criminal means? Still fair game if factual/true?

Somebody please clarify something for me. I'm not aware that the Trump campaign every actually GOT any information from foreign sources.
I'm aware that Manafort allegedly GAVE polling information to someone who was Russian.
I'm aware that information was publicly disclosed by Wikileaks.
But neither of those would constitute the Trump campaign's actually GETTING information FROM foreign sources. Somebody help me, explain what I am missing.

I presume you mean, like from a break in.
In that case, the break in should the punished. The info, if true and verifiable, should be usable.
Take the case of a Ukrainian coming to a campaign, and saying, Mr. X watches child porn, and I can prove it. Should the information be buriesd because it came from a Ukrainian? Should we just stand by and let a pedophile be elected just because we learned of it from a foreigner?
Additionally, does it matter if the source is Australian, Austrian, or Ugandan?
What if the info comes from an American in ISIS?
Hillary is not wrong for seeking info from foreigners - she is wrong is using info she knows to be at best unverified, and at worst, false.

Valid questions. But mine is to be addressed before you actually get to that point. Before it matters from what source you got information, you actually have to establish that some information was gotten. And that's what I'm questioning.

Maybe the Russians did or did not hack the DNC. I've still not seen any evidence that proves conclusively that they did, and there are certainly some credible alternative theories. I don't doubt that they tried, just as I don't doubt that they wanted to interfere in our election process. What I'm not sure of is to what end. I suspect it was simply to be disruptive, and on that front they clearly succeeded. I don't know that they would have picked sides, or any reason why they would have. Except that if the objective was to be disruptive, and one candidate was 90% certain to win, the efforts would certainly have been directed primarily against that certain winner. I don't see anything indicative of any sort of quid pro quo conspiracy. Whatever the Russians did, I'm 99% certain that they were going to do precisely that with or without Donald Trump. Wikileaks was always going to release whatever they released. That's who they are and what they do.

I have wondered if maybe the democrats did not feel a need to create some narrative that Russians intervened only because of Trump. Clearly if the truth is that Russia has always tried to hack and interfere, that makes it pretty obvious that they almost certainly hacked Hillary.

ALL of this.

To your question 93 (in the clearly related hypothetical)...

If a criminal is caught breaking into an office and finds evidence of a crime by the company, the criminal clearly got the information through illegal means. If they offered it to reduce their sentence, the prosecutor would ask what evidence they had and perhaps make a deal... using that 'illegally obtained' evidence against the company because it was not obtained 'by an agent' of the prosecutor's office... someone acting on behalf of the government.

That's the prosecutor's office. Why would a candidate for office who is still a private citizen be held to a higher standard?