Ah: you have switched form “idiotic” to “ridiculous”. The evidence for it happening was laid out clearly by Mueller in his report and indictment of the Russians.
Do you have any evidence or is this another example of the Trump style – when you got nothing start slinging insults.?
“The guide to winning arguments with Idiots” would be more helpful.
I suggested that we have yet to see definitive proof of who was hacking what or if indeed ANYTHING was hacked and not down-loaded, which would preclude the Russians as a source for at least the DNC hacks.
When you can show me the proof of what was actually hacked and not down-loaded please do so. When you can show me proof that all information leaked all Summer was gleaned from one source or one hacker please do so.
M
Oh, trust me, I think the supposition that Trump was telling the Russians to hack already deleted emails is purely idiotic.
M
NOPE
I have been told that what Trump said was AGAINST the LAW.
Show me HOW it is against the law to tell the Russians to come up with already-deleted emails.
LET’S START THERE.
M
You appear confused. I do not work for the FBI or NSA, nor am I a member of the Mueller team, so I cannot show you the evidence. All I can do is pass along what Mueller reported (and which you apparently are making a huge effort to avoid reading). I am describing what Mueller said the evidence showed. Mueller is an ex-Marine with a stirling reputation throughout his career so I believe him.
If Mueller’s reporting is not good enough for you, then the burden is on you to present the evidence you prefer to you can tell me why you don’t trust the work of a life-long Republican and ex-Marine. Those credentials may not matter to you.
I am offering the Meuller Report as evidence; your are providing nothing but speculation. The onus is on you to present something credible, not to demand more from me.
There’s an old saw widely shared among lawyers. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side pound the law. When the law is not on your side, pound the table.
I am pounding the facts. You are pounding the table, and tossing out random insults in a vain effort to cover what you re doing.
Trump asked the Russians to produce VERY SPECIFIC emails only - the 30,000 emails that Clinton had already illegally deleted - emails they could NOT hack.
He asked for NOTHING ELSE from them. So that makes you wrong.
If you want to call yourself an idiot I have no objection.
M
The head of the FEC said that accepting materials from a foreign government would be illegal… in response to Trump’s I’ll collude with anyone statement this week. Does that mean asking for them is illegal. I am not sure. But it certainly means Trump reading from the materials at his rallies in 2016 was illegal.
Trump has a Security Clearance. Speaking from experience, the instructions people with clearances get are that any time you are approached by a potential compromising entity, you report that approach immediately. Under no circumstances do you go to a meeting, unless you are working under the direction of your security agency. Illegal? Maybe not. But anyone who violated that would have their clearance(s) suspended immediately)
This is where you asked to start. The evidence of illegal action and actions that violate national security are obvious. The system is flashing red. Do you notice?
Mueller offered NO PROOF of his assertion that the Russians were hackers in the Mueller report.
He just made the charge. If and when you or he has the proof let me know and we can all look at it.
Not even in the Intelligence Assessment released at the beginning of 2017 did all the agencies involved say they have the proof.
All they said was they think it was highly probable and the NSA wouldn’t even go that far.
M
Trumps campaign manager gave internal polling data to Putin operative Kilimnik, and suddenly there was social media interference in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Collusion.
You are making no sense. I said Turmp asked for materials – I did not say which materials. You are putting words in my mouth when what I said is easily verifiable.
I’ll add that to my list of things to avoid in “The Idiot’s Guide to Winning Arguments”
The proof you are requesting lies in the underlying evidence of the Mueller report. That same underlying evidence you have said should not be released to the public or even to Congress.
Now you think it should be released… to you?
Those emails BELONG to you and me. How in hell is asking for them illegal??? He OPENLY asked for them, too. And besides, he never expected the Russians to ACTUALLY produce them, because to do so would be to admit they had hacked them in the first place. That was why it was a joke.
But what does any of that have to do with the subject of his OPEN call to produce the deleted emails?
There is NO national security risk to call for the Russians to produce already-deleted emails - especially when there isn’t a chance in hell they actually would, if they had them.
But if they DID then maybe we could have found out WHY Clinton was so desperate to delete them. Don’t you want to know that, or is it of no interest to you, as she was your hero?
M
If you think Mueller made up the charge without proof you obviously have not read the report. The evidence is plain.
So you are saying that an ex-Marine just “made the charge up.” Good for you!
And you will never find an NSA assessment that offers absolute proof; everything they report is probabilistic. You are turning professional caution against them. Leave it to Bush and Cheney to claim “proof” of Iraqi WMD’s. The intelligence assessments were much more modest.
I think before you claim that the Russians absolutely did it you need to see it, if and when they come to trial…
…Which by the way, will be NEVER, which is why Mueller could make the charge without fear of contradiction.
As of RIGHT NOW, we have seen no such proof - not from Bob Mueller and not from the intelligence assessment which ADMITTED they had no such proof.
M
The intelligence assessments went out of their way to say they actually had no such proof.
Had they actually had the proof they would have said so. The NSA under Admiral Rogers was even more circumspect. They were unwilling to even say they had a high confidence level, and in fact the agency MOST LIKELY to have definitive proof would be the NSA.
M
I’m saying that Mueller went along with what he was told by the intel community, because that is ALL HE COULD DO.
He was tasked with finding a culprit and the intel community gave him his culprits.
M
I get it now. You don’t think the Russians hacked the DNC because you think it was down-loaded by Seth Rich, don’t you?
That is amazing.
Oh please.
The Russians who bought ad time spent LESS than the cost of a fully-loaded Escalade but you want me to believe they were able to out-perform the MILLIONS of dollars spent on ad buys by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, just because the polling data told the Russians that Trump was doing well there.
If the Clinton campaign and the DNC don’t know how to WIN Michigan Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota with millions of dollars on ads versus 50 thousand dollars worth then they don’t deserve to win.
As to whether or not Manafort’s polls had anything to do with it is silly. Those are and were battleground states that Trump specifically went after and spent a great deal of time and effort in and it still didn’t get him Minnesota.
Clinton’s was a LOUSY campaign. Can you not just admit that???
M
