(06-18-2019 01:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 12:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2019 12:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I honestly don't know. From what I understand it seems as if Trump's people were very open to reviewing/examining material that was potentially illegally procured by an adversary but they didn't actually participate in the act of procurement?

I'm not actually aware that they ever reviewed or examined any of it. At least not until it was placed into the public domain by Wikileaks.

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.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/politics/...index.html

An investigation by the German parliament is raising questions on whether the Obama administration not only spied on journalists in that country, but also interfered in the exercise of the free press under the guise of U.S. national security.

Isn't this exactly what Russia did in terms of the trolling? Not the email hacking, but again we have no evidence that any damaging information was ever hacked, which would have had to have been obvious to be effective.... but in terms of the facebook trolling? From Russia's perspective, a weaker US is in their best interests of national security. It is economically in their interest to have a weaker US.

What's your argument in comparing the Russian incursion to what the US did to Germany?

No one is arguing that it isn't logical for Russia to do what it's done.