These are large organized groups trying to sway an election for their own agendas to be pushed through. It's more similar than you want to admit.Originally Posted by Julio3000
These are large organized groups trying to sway an election for their own agendas to be pushed through. It's more similar than you want to admit.
They haven't presented any evidence to the public? They haven't presented it to members of congress who have asked. Why not?
CNN gave HRC questions in advance
NBC leaked an audio video of Trump bragging about grabbing pussy
NYT stole his tax returns and released them
Certainyl - I can appreciate journalism trying to get to the truth - and we the people had a right to know. But isn't that what wikileaks did?
You know, if the DNC isn't trying to influence the outcome of elections, I'm not sure what good they are.
The outcome of their own election? Seriously? Why not just let their own constituency decide.
'Incidental Collection'
wheee
I reject your premise, but given the examples you've used, I think it's worth comment:
CNN canceled Donna Brazile's contract. Can you point to any evidence that CNN personnel otherwise colluded?
Someone leaked the Access Hollywood tape. Are you suggesting that it was a top-floor decision at NBC? But, teh evidence.
NYT reporters and lawyers have made unequivocal statements that the tax transcript was legally obtained. Bear in mind the time frame that it came from and other parties who could authorize its release. Whatever the case, they didn't steal it.
Nor did Wikileaks steal the DNC/Podesta emails. But someone did.
'I can't talk about anything related to the FISA process in an open setting ...' - Comey
Good gravy.
I'm not surprised you reject my premise. Bc your moby dick (RUSSIA!) aligns with your political motivations, whereas the others didn't bother you so much
Having said all that, I find it strange that everyone claims they have evidence yet won't release it. Why wouldn't they? Not even to members of congress. So the American people have to take the CIA's word for it?
Well golly, they would never steer me wrong!
Again, if the Braziille accusation hold water I am sure it will come up.
Trump's party is in the majority and are setting the agenda for the hearings.
In fact the Chair of Intel Comm Nunes participated in the transition
To the victor the spoils
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
for those that don't understand why posters on baseball boards aren't privy to delicate information:
David CornVerified account @DavidCornDC 35m35 minutes ago
Comey confirms FBI is investigating Russian hacking AND contacts between Trump associates and Moscow.
Says he can't say more.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
The FBI director just said that there is an ongoing counterintelligence investigation. That's going to necessarily complicate the public release of information.
I can't speak to "members of congress," but I know that the Republican chair of the Intel committee--who does have access to info that other members currently do not--has publicly stated his belief that Russia attempted to interfere in the election.
No one's mentioned the CIA.
The other ones "don't bother me so much" because I don't understand their relevance to this issue and don't think you've done anything to underscore their significance.
"I can't comment on that" is the new [Redacted] for the digital age.
This isn't grasping at straws at all.
wasn't there a kurfluffle over a "C" in the past year ?
you certainly appeared to understand the complications then
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Pro-war Republicans (think John McCain) have always hated Russia and will do whatever it takes to get public support against them.
A rep from Michigan - Justin Amash - said if there is evidence to link Trump coordinating with Putin, that it must be looked at immediately. He asked the head of intelligence for a private meeting to discuss the evidence and was denied. So was Rand Paul.
I cna't think of any downside of releasing this evidence. You're already telling Putin we have it - so what is the point in holding it back?
I've been pretty forthright about my belief that this investigation is likely to turn up nothing but smoke and circumstance. Still, it seems like whistling past the graveyard for sturg to say "BUT TEH EVIDENCE" when the relevant official is declining to comment about the evidence because of an ongoing investigation.
Furthermore, it's conflating the issue of Trump campaign collusion with Russia and Russian interference in the election. There's a bipartisan consensus on the latter point among members who have been briefed, which is largely based on information which is still classified. It's pretty obtuse to deny that at this point.
I'm content to wait and see and accept the conclusions when they're drawn based on what's known. You're simply saying "no." Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. But isn't it too soon to say?
You don't seem to think that there was any attempt on the part of Russia to influence the election. True?
Well, I don't know what this means.
I'm sure Russia had a preferred candidate, and I'm sure they did what they can to get the outcome they want.
Just like the US does.
Just like the DNC does.
I don't think it's a sinister plot to take over the country - but rather trying to get a candidate who may not immiedately cry that Russia is the devil. That makes sense to me - even if I can understand why some americans don't like it. It makes sense that a foreign government would want a certain person over the other to take on the world's most powerful position.
By the way I think it's really cool how you change "the" to "TEH"... very catchy!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote