The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Ha, talking about a dodge. Smile

Anyway, lets say you are in a court of law and there is evidence submitted by the prosecutor and it turns out that evidence is a phone which has been in other hands other than the defense. Anything on that phone would be considered suspect because that person could manipulate or outright add data on it while it is in their possession. The evidence would be thrown out and any questions related to that evidence the defense would not have to answer. The DNC data and Podesta's (however you spell his name) email has been in Russian control. They are known to manipulate information for propaganda purposes. So anything relating to any of that information is suspect, therefore the Clintons or anyone else does not have to answer questions relating to that information.

3 Replies

@revelette1,

No one is arguing about your somewhat contrived evidence theory, rather the use you make of it to distract from the truth.

Your phone metaphor is defective in that it fails to reflect the facts that (1) there is other, prior evidence confirming what is "on the phone" (i.e. the Russian leaks it represents) and (2) the accused perpetrators here do indeed have in their posession confirming evidence of what they did and didn't do and the expressed motive for it. Oddly none of them have offered ANYTHING to refute what was in both the Russian leaks and the additional confirming evidence already on the table before the leaks came out.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Unless you or someone else presents the prior evidence other than WikiLeaks, you are full of holes as usual. Secondly, it does not matter if the Clinton's or anyone has their own information, they are still not required to confirm or deny any questions resulting from WikiLeaks as it just gives credence to the theft in the place.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Clinton wasn't a defendant in a criminal case (more's the pity)

Obviously they didn't have to answer questions about the e-mail, because they didn't and no one tried to force them to. But without answering those questions, the protestations that the e-mail were tampered with fell on deaf ears. Whose fault was that?

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Let's be specific here. Among the supposed Russian leaks of information were some e -mails from John Podesta allegedly suggesting DNC collaboration with the Hillary campaign, during the primary, and with both the campaign and some media figures, during the final election process. Major elements of this story had already been separately publicized much earlier in the Wasserman-Schultz imbroligo, and more recently in the case of Dona Brazille and some media figures. The supposed "Russian leaks" merely offered confirmatory evidence of issues, already in the public domain and being hotly discussed.

In such circumstances when Podesta & co. announce that the Russian leaks may have been "doctored" and are therefore not to be believed, but at the same time fail to either deny the allegations or address other prior evidence or even offer any new information in their defense, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that they are lying to save their skins.

When they go beyond even that and announce that our election has somehow "being hacked" by those evil Russians; and even rouse our hapless President, who stood silent as Russia seized half of Armenia, all of Crimea and threatens Ukrane - all without any action on his part - to suddently make threatening statements to Russia ( about things he will have no power to even influence - " we will retaliate at a time and place of our own choosing" ), it all gets a bit ridiculous.

1 Reply

Cooler Dem heads may prevail by 2020. but my bet is the Left-wing will have seized full control and someone like Sanders or Warren will get the nomination. Unless Trump implodes he should have no trouble wiping the map with them.

0 Replies

@Frugal1,

This isn't about grammar. And the fact that you state it to be such proves that your intellect is even greater than I suspected..

The misuse of a word in a statement as you did is not a grammatical error. It is a lack of knowledge about what the word means. But that doesn't seem to stop you..so please continue..I like you. You make me laugh..Your politics are spot on..

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Regardless if anyone believed in the WikiLeaks (personally, I think you and others make too much of the impact), the fact remains, the information was hacked by Russian players who have been known since the cold war to distort information for propaganda purposes which is why Podesta suggested it might have been doctored. To give legitimacy to that information by discussing it is giving Russia permission to interfere and hack into our (US) data. Clinton and others have no need to deny or confirm anything related to it, nor should they.

Ya'll are not really adding new, I am repeating the same things. I am going to ignore any replies in this particular subject as we just keep going back and forth.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

That's what happens when you repeatedly ignore and evade critical points that are very inconvenient for the flawed argument you are trying to make. You ultimately run out of evasions and places to hide, so you have to end the conversation.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

Podesta suggested it might have been doctored.

Do you find it odd that he said it might have been? Why not come out and say it was without a doubt?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Actually, I am not so sure he even said it in the first place, I merely took George1 word for it. I am trying to look into it now.

Found it. He said he doesn't have time to figure out which are accurate and which are fake.

Here.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

When they go beyond even that and announce that our election has somehow "being hacked" by those evil Russians [...] it all gets a bit ridiculous.

I'm assuming "they" include the CIA and the FBI:

Quote:

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday

I also like how your dismissal uses the exact same language used by Trump:

Quote:

“I think it’s ridiculous,” Trump said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” his first Sunday news-show appearance since the Nov. 8 election. “I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it. . . . No, I don’t believe it at all.”

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Quote:

He said he doesn't have time to figure out which are accurate and which are fake.

Do you find it odd that he does not have even a little time to defend his reputation?

1 Reply

@old europe,

You are quoting the Washinton post here in saying that "Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump". What is the real meaning of that statement and just what did the FBI and CIA say or announce? I doubt seriously they are their words.

What does "intervened in our election mean"? They indirectly leaked some hacked e-mails providing at most anecdotal amplification of information already in the public domain from other sources. If the material was false or "doctored" as alleged Podesta & co could easily release their real e-mails or at least issue specific denials. He has done neither.

Ridiculous is ridiculous. Are you suggesting there is a conspiracy in my word choice ??????

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Not really, when you get down to it, there really wasn't much there and what was there was much too little too late. It would have been a bigger impact if the Russians were not involved and it was leaked in the primary between Bernie and Hillary. Alas...

In my opinion, it was our own FBI who did more damage to Hillary's campaign than the Russians did with that last minute hail Mary which ended up being nothing at all but still knocked her numbers down and stopped the momentum she was on.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

Quote:

It would have been a bigger impact if the Russians were not involved and it was leaked in the primary between Bernie and Hillary. Alas...

Maybe I am wrong but many of us already seen this behavior before the people who leaked it. The problem was the behavior not the messenger or method by which we received the perception of Hillary that we did.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

It's a good thing your opinion amounts to diddley-squat.

The DNC strategist (12o campaigns) Harlan Hill was telling democrat voters to vote for Trump.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You are quoting the Washinton post here in saying that "Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump". What is the real meaning of that statement and just what did the FBI and CIA say or announce? I doubt seriously they are their words.

This goes back to the CIA's reassessment of the nature of Russian interference in the U.S. elections. Via NPR:

Quote:

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR.

"Before, there was confidence about the fact that Russia interfered," the official says. "But there was low confidence on what the direction and intentionality of the interference was. Now they [the CIA] have come to the conclusion that Russia was trying to tip the election to Trump."

The official adds: "The reason the assessment changed is that new information became available" since Oct. 7, when the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement accusing Russia of interfering with the American election process.

And, via the Washington Post:

Quote:

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Following this, questions were raised whether or not the FBI shared this view, which prompted CIA Director John Brennan to send out this message to the workforce:

Quote:

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,”

The reassessment of the nature of Russian interference may have been partly based on the finding that the RNC was hacked along with the DNC, but only DNC material was ever leaked to the public. Via the New York Times:

Quote:

American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Ah, you and Finn misinterpreted my post. And I likely misinterpreted Finn's.

I thought Finn was asking whether the Clinton folk had even dared try to claim that the leaked emails were doctored with.

I answered that yes indeed, they did try to do so.

I wholly agree with you, Finn and Glenn Greenwald that their attempts to do so were eye-rollingly unconvincing.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Harlan Hill was telling democrat voters to vote for Trump.

He was a Berniebot who turned democratic traitor when he dident get Bernie on the ticket. Bernie wanted all his people to vote for Hillary and the ones who dident screwed not only all the democrats but himself. He will, I am sure get a valuable spot on Fox news with the other shyt stirrers.

1 Reply

The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know