(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.