DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

[BigRedBuster]

@MNBigRedNorth @Notre Dame Joe

 

The president has said the report proves no obstruction. Who is lying, him or his AG?

 

 

[commando]

1 minute ago, MNBigRedNorth said:

.  A dreamed up story told over and over is not a fact!

now you are talking about the deep state uni-party?

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, MNBigRedNorth said:

Well then tell if that can't prove one thing that they say, and it's not a fact, what the heck is it.  To me it's a lie.  A dreamed up story told over and over is not a fact!

So Donald Trumps own statements and actions are a dreamed up story told over and over? Someone please wake me up if this is the case

[khaake]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I am uncomfortable with “journalists” getting information by committing crimes and not having to worry about getting into trouble. 

 

Should the omaha world Harold be able to hack into your financial records on your computer and publish them?

 

Valid points. I agree that the line has to be drawn someplace. But in this case I don't think we were talking about a publisher breaking into a personal computer of a private individual to expose their information publicly. Instead we were talking about a publisher obtaining information about what governments were up to. There seems to be a difference there.

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, khaake said:

 

Valid points. I agree that the line has to be drawn someplace. But in this case I don't think we were talking about a publisher breaking into a personal computer of a private individual to expose their information publicly. Instead we were talking about a publisher obtaining information about what governments were up to. There seems to be a difference there.

How was it obtained?

 

what about how the Clinton emails were obtained?

[khaake]

 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

How was it obtained?

 

what about how the Clinton emails were obtained?

 

Good questions. For what it is worth the stated reason for the US extraditing Assange is due to activities in 2010 - not the Clinton email case.
This was part of it.

[Danny Bateman]

13 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 If you want to know why Donald Trump is a danger to everything he touches, you can go straight to his public record. The verifiable financial history, the litany of lawsuits, the recorded public utterances, the spontaneous tweets, and his own autobiography. The media didn't make this s#!t up. If anything, it gave him far too much free publicity. 

 

I'm old enough to remember news networks cutting away from other candidates speaking live to show an empty Trump podium for an extended period of time in anticipation of his antics.

[Danny Bateman]

17 minutes ago, MNBigRedNorth said:

Well then tell if that can't prove one thing that they say, and it's not a fact, what the heck is it.  To me it's a lie.  A dreamed up story told over and over is not a fact!

 

Hopefully you understood the line "Mexico will pay for the wall" was a lie from the get-go, then.

 

Or the claimTrump can't release his tax returns due to a non-existent audit.

 

And so on and so forth.

[Danny Bateman]

55 minutes ago, khaake said:

What is it, in your opinion, that differentiates Wikileaks from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, etc.? Are those who run traditional newspapers also spies in your book?

 

You've brought some very important questions ITT. Thanks for that. I'll take this in a different direction.

 

The difference is those organizations theoretically have no agenda other than reporting news. Obviously partisan publications differ in this regard, but theoretically non-partisan institutions like NYT and WaPo exist without regard to politics to unearth fact and truth for more educated society.

 

Wikileaks, on the other hand, seemed under Assange to have an implicit agreement to share news on and critique the West. They have largely ignored Russia, China and other Eastern powers, and I believe it is intentional.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

You've brought some very important questions ITT. Thanks for that. I'll take this in a different direction.

 

The difference is those organizations theoretically have no agenda other than reporting news. Obviously partisan publications differ in this regard, but theoretically non-partisan institutions like NYT and WaPo exist without regard to politics to unearth fact and truth for more educated society.

 

Wikileaks, on the other hand, seemed under Assange to have an implicit agreement to share news on and critique the West. They have largely ignored Russia, China and other Eastern powers, and I believe it is intentional.

 

 

 

They also seem to target only one particular party in the U.S. and ignore others.

[khaake]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

They also seem to target only one particular party in the U.S. and ignore others.

 

I think that is the common perception, but generally speaking it doesn't hold a lot of water. Here is the wikipedia list of their publications: Wikileaks Publications

[khaake]

7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

You've brought some very important questions ITT. Thanks for that. I'll take this in a different direction.

 

The difference is those organizations theoretically have no agenda other than reporting news. Obviously partisan publications differ in this regard, but theoretically non-partisan institutions like NYT and WaPo exist without regard to politics to unearth fact and truth for more educated society.

 

Wikileaks, on the other hand, seemed under Assange to have an implicit agreement to share news on and critique the West. They have largely ignored Russia, China and other Eastern powers, and I believe it is intentional.

 

True, they have been very critical of the West, and haven't had a lot of publications aimed at China (or Russia). But at the same time, they were based in the West and so to some extent I think that can be expected. I'm not going to try to argue that they weren't an asset of Russia - maybe they were, and I have no way to know. But on the other had we haven't seen actual evidence to that effect yet, have we?

 

[Danny Bateman]

Just now, khaake said:

 

True, they have been very critical of the West, and haven't had a lot of publications aimed at China (or Russia). But at the same time, they were based in the West and so to some extent I think that can be expected. I'm not going to try to argue that they weren't an asset of Russia - maybe they were, and I have no way to know. But on the other had we haven't seen actual evidence to that effect yet, have we? 

 

 

Not that I'm aware of. But it'll be interesting if Assange actually gets extradited, as then he could theoretically be questioned by the Feds if they so chose to look further into the matter as a matter of national security.

[MNBigRedNorth]

18 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

You misunderstand what logical fallacy is. 

 

Here is a list of the most common ones:

 

 

So you changed what I was arguing about by commenting about someone we weren't talking about...because you thought I was some kind of Obama supporter (I'm not) so you could dismiss me and any politics that go with someone who supports Obama.  That's a straw man logical fallacy (see the picture above).  Doesn't matter if its factual or not because it wasn't the topic at hand.  It's a classic straw man.  Own it and move on.  Everyone makes mistakes.

 

My question still stands...why does Trump get a pass (with so much smoke around him and Russia) from people...especially from Conservatives who claim to love this country and all it stands for?  To me, anyone who gets friendly with a Russian dictator or any dictator and claims they are 'great guys' is not someone I want in charge of the country.

 

Because the whole Trump/Russia CLAIM is nothing more than a set up to take him down by people who don't like him.  As soon as he joked about having Putin look to find where the 30,000 Hillary Emails were, this whole story started.  They conveniently used the United States Government and our spying apparatus to benefit the candidate of their choice, and when that candidate lost the big cover up/scheme started in a failed attempt to take down a sitting POTUS.  This is all pretty simple common sense stuff, and if people are not seeing it's simply because they WANT to believe that President Trump is BAD.  I could see this all happening before he was even elected, and also feared for the mans life because he won and new the big players wanted him gone any way they could achieve it.  Most of the information I have suspected for a long time was blocked from coming out because the Mueller Investigation and threats of Obstruction.  Now that it is over, everything can come out, and your just now starting to see this happen.  The tables have been turned and eventually the whole FISA Court application and process to spy on Trump will be made public.  Very interesting days are coming.  Strap in for some stuff that will surprise many.

[knapplc]

10 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

You've brought some very important questions ITT. Thanks for that. I'll take this in a different direction. 

 

The difference is those organizations theoretically have no agenda other than reporting news. Obviously partisan publications differ in this regard, but theoretically non-partisan institutions like NYT and WaPo exist without regard to politics to unearth fact and truth for more educated society.

 

Wikileaks, on the other hand, seemed under Assange to have an implicit agreement to share news on and critique the West. They have largely ignored Russia, China and other Eastern powers, and I believe it is intentional.

 

I think a huge difference is the intent of use of the information.  The same tool can be used by different people with different results. A carpenter bashing his hammer on a nail makes him a tradesman. A psychopath bashing his hammer on peoples' heads makes him a murderer.

 

Information can be disclosed as part of a newsman's job. That same information can be used as a political weapon. The weaponization of information is something we should all be wary of.

 

Regarding Assange, the indictment is for conspiracy to hack a government website, in conjunction with Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning. There's going to be a really interesting conversation between what constitutes a heroic whistleblower and a criminal leaker. 

 

People are going to have to take off their partisan hats and decide what's best for the country as a whole. Should be a fun time.