I have no idea. I don’t discount anything.
M
The was not Mueller’s task. You made great up.
Mueller did use a wide variety of investigative powers. Perhaps he should have just asked you instead?
It’s tough when the evidence is against you, but you are not helping by making things up. Rosenstein’s instructions to Mueller said nothing about culprit.
Let me suggest a way to improve the quality of this discussion. Why don’t you try making an argument you can document instead if making up what you want people to believe Mueller or Rosenstein or I said.
1 Like
They didn’t.
Always. Hearing, reading or seeing speech is part and parcel of free speech. What use are free speech protections if they can be nullified by making hearing, reading or seeing it illegal?
Another right winger who doesn’t understand the first amendment.
Why?
It is NOT against any law or any standard of ethics to get legitimate information on your opponent from ANY source - not foreign newspapers and not foreign individuals and not foreign governments.
It’s not INTERFERENCE to offer information, legitimately obtained. Is it illegal to read something in the UK’s newspaper, the Daily Mail and use it? Is the Daily Mail interfering in our election to report it? Are we all supposed to suspend our subscriptions to the Daily Mail whenever an election begins?
Why is THAT information better than say the information that a foreign state prosecutor obtained in the performance of his duties? How is it INTERFERENCE in our election to learn that one of the candidates actually committed crimes in a foreign country, and there is actual proof of it? Isn’t that something that ALL AMERICANS are entitled to know?
You are conflating illegitimate shenanigans and illegal actions with legitimate information any candidate is entitled to see and use, according to the 1st Amendment - no matter the source.
Now, if someone comes to a candidate and says, “I have emails that we hacked illegally off your opponent’s server!”
THAT is when they should go to the FBI. That would be illegal interference.
OR, you go to them if you get legitimate dirt on your opponent that the FBI would want to know, so they can corroborate it and then possibly investigate it. But you have to HEAR it first, to know if they would want to know.
But legitimate and proven information in an election is not interference. It is just information, and we are all entitled to see it - no matter the source. 1st Amendment.
If it happens to “interfere” with your candidate winning, well that’s tough. They shouldn’t have done whatever the dirt is.
M
Nobody interfered in the election.
When it comes from a foreign country with the intent to effect the election, that’s interference.
He’s right. You’re wrong.
The 1st Amendment protects the free flow of information. It allows me to print what I want and you to read what you want, and the government cannot restrict either one of us from moving that information back and forth.
In tyrannical societies no such right exists and information is restricted by edict. Not here.
M
No, that would be influence.
NOPE
They are simply telling you information and you are entitled to hear it.
If you want to change your vote based on the truth they have provided for you, that is still up to you.
Information is NOT interference. It is simply truth revealed.
M
Indeed.
And the truth shall set them free.
M
Both are true.
And that’s better?
Your attention, please. This is exactly what he said. This WAS illegal.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
From the Mueller Report, volume 1, page 49 (#factsmatter):
On July 27 2016, Unit 26165 targeted email accounts connected to candidate Clinton’s
personal office . Earlier that day, candidate Trump made public statements that
included the following: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 183 The “30,000
emails” were apparently a reference to emails described in media accounts as having been stored
on a personal server that candidate Clinton had used while serving as Secretary of State.
Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement, GRU officers targeted for the first
time Clinton’s personal office. After candidate Trump’s remarks, Unit 26165 created and sent
malicious links targeting 15 email accounts at the domain including an email
account belonging to Clinton aide The investigation did not find evidence of earlier
GRU attempts to compromise accounts hosted on this domain. It is unclear how the GRU was
able to identify these email accounts, which were not public. 184
Trump told them to hack and they did. Illegal. Traitorous, if you ask me.
Mueller’s task was to investigate the alleged Russian interference with our elections and as an aside, see if the Trump campaign colluded with them in any of that.
What he found proof of was some internet trolling, and that was traced back directly to Russian companies they could identify.
Other than that they are still just making other allegations about hacking. We have yet to see any real connections in that.
And no American knowingly colluded with the Russian shenanigans that we know of or even suspect.
M
Wrong. Read the FEC Chairman’s statement again. You are not. You call the FBI first.
Wrong, again. Read the FEC Chairman’s statement AGAIN. The law says anything “of value”. That includes information.
And there lies the biggest fallacy. If you release received information about a political opponents criminal or unethical actions and dont report it to authorities, then you just have to release it as political accusations and rumors. Of course you report it. That is how it does the most damage.
