no allegation that they did is the quoteOriginally Posted by Hawk
no allegation that they did is the quote
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Natural Immunity Croc
This is the best line.
Natural Immunity Croc
"There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
correct...but remember this is a witch hunt
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
He wasn't giving an opinion, he was stating a fact that actions alleged in the indictment did not alter the outcome of the election. That's a carefully couched statement and factually correct. The outcome of the election was not, indeed, ALTERED, by these actions. You're stretching really hard for some spin here.
Really? It would appear quite the opposite.
The indictments produced today do not reflect actions that altered the outcome of the election. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes no allegation in this indictment. That does not mean an end-all, be-all that there were never any Americans knowingly involved. Altering an election would to me mean changing actual votes. There aren't any allegations in this indictment that that happened. But it's obvious things were influenced tremendously.
It's clear from this indictment this particular group favored an effort to have a Trump-Sanders race. A celebrity businessman under the mantle of draining the swamp vs. a self-described socialist. Who's gonna win that election?
But whether or not any votes were altered is not the sole purpose of the investigation. So you're building it up like it's supposed to be a death blow to the investigation.
My point is that what you seem to be talking about is a subjective judgment. You're reading WAY too much into that answer.
"Altered = changed." That's completely true. Nothing in these indictments involves Russian meddling in the actual mechanics of the voting. If the questioner is asking Rod Rosenstein if he thought that this effort influenced the outcome of the election, who knows what the answer would be? How the hell would he know? That's a matter for intelligence analysts, not cops. The answer is that it didn't "alter" the outcome.
He's either making a factual statement about the indictments, or he's issuing an opinion. Which one do you think is more likely for a high-ranking DoJ official to do from the podium?
How am I reading too much into the answer?
I'm regurgitating it at face value and you are breaking down into sentence diagramming.
I would think if he were speaking specifically about voting mechanisms he would have mentioned that.
It's not like we don't have metrics software to determine the engagement and reach of these troll farms.
I am? How?
So what is your purpose in bringing specific attention to this quote and then the accompanying lol you put with it?
My 'lol' was directed at your comment that the indictments somehow magically tied to Gates/Manafort.
I highlight the quote because it's the biggest takeaway from the presser.
I've learned through this process to at least acknowledge that there are a lot of known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, (h/t Rumsfeld) in this investigation.
My speculation about it is fruitless. My opinions are, in the greater scheme, uninformed. I don't have an opinion as to what these indictments mean for the broader investigation, 'cause I have no clue. I wonder why Hawk's so sanguine about his opinion.
Hawk, you have opined that every indictment that's been issued in this case has diminished the case for prosecutable hijinks in Trump world. You treat each indictment as if it is the end of the investigation and the end of the story. I'm not sure why you think you can look at the visible portion of the iceberg above the water and guess the size of it.
I think it could wind up tying into them. Don't know if it will. But one has to wonder about the timing of this and why Gates apparently has reversed course and may be signing on to cooperate.
No, you're reciting it at the face value of what you think it means. And, criminy, I am not saying that I believe that this IRA effort DID "alter" the outcome of the election, just that officials in his position tend to deploy their words carefully and with purpose.
If he were speaking specifically about the fruit of reach metrics or whatever, you'd think he'd have mentioned THAT. And that could well be the conclusion… I just think that answer is ambiguous on that score
I just quoted the Deputy AG. Take it up with him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote