(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.