(06-19-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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).

So if you were offered a video of Trump saying that he would 'grab a woman by the &^(&^', they would turn it over to the FBI and not use it?

Don't you have to first know what the information is? And just because you turned it over, doesn't mean you wouldn't also use it.

Quote: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?

Agree with #1, but not with #2. As others have alluded, what if the reason your friend is telling you your wife is cheating is because he wants you to get divorced so that he can date her? That just creates TWO bad actors, and doesn't change what you do with the information given to you about your wife. If she said, you only found out because your friend wants us to divorce, that might make you not like your friend anymore, but it doesn't excuse your wife, does it?

Quote: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.

The reality is that 'that behavior' is an opinion, not a fact... and 'y'all seem too eager to try and convict someone based on an opinion'. Negligence is a legal term, and you haven't met the elements of that legal term. You're using it in a common vernacular.

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.

Wow. You're violating someone's Constitutional right to innocence until proven guilty and then suggesting that an individual citizens are subject to rules clearly designed for the government and not citizens?

Nobody has suggested, and in fact I specifically addressed that someone acting on behalf of the government who violates someone's 4th amendment rights is a criminal... and often criminals literally get away with murder as a result... but that isn't remotely what has happened here.... and amusingly once again is the left accusing the right of what they have (more accurately but not 100% accurately) done.

Nobody has alleged that the Russians were acting on behalf of the US government... or that Trump's people were doing so... so the 4th amendment complaint is moot.... unless you're saying that Russia violated Hillary's 4th amendment rights which is true, but moot as they aren't subject to it.

Arguably, the bugging/monitoring of the Trump organization based on a weak FISA warrant was a violation of Trump's 4th amendment rights. I won't debate that here, but we're far closer to 'that' than we are to Trump having violated Hillary or the DNC's 4th amendment rights, even if they DID 100% collude with Russia to commit crimes to find dirt on Hillary. That might be a crime, but it's not remotely a Constitutional issue... and no court would throw that out as a result.