Democracy Falters in the US

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

What I said is something that stands as an uncontested fact.

"Hillary Clinton and the DNC tried to secretly funnel money to Christopher Steele through the law firm Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS. They initially denied it, but they got caught. 

There you go moving the goalposts again. You made up the claim that they paid Russians for the info. You just said if you got caught lying you’d never live it down and here you are lying. An accusation that you completely make up with zero evidence is a lie, even though you really really really hope it's true. 

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The false info was then passed off to the FBI, who subsequently used it (lied about it) to obtain warrants to spy on Trump's associates during the campaign, to influence the election, period.

The warrants were based on many pieces of evidence including papadopolous own drunken bragging, not just the Steele dossier  And the claim that the Republican head of the FBI was trying to influence the election in favour of Hillary makes no sense especially since he did more than anyone to tile the election against her when just days before the election he announced he wasn’t reopening the investigation into her emails (he then found nothing). 

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The only person who would have actually known were the people at Crowdstrike, and their owner testified that they didn't actually know for certain. Therefor, not one single person on earth did aside from the people who lifted the info and possibly Assange.

I already provided you the quote and link tot eh crowdstrike website where they say the exact opposite. Dis you forget already?  They go into quite a bit of detail so here’s just an excerpt:
 

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC? 

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.....

We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report [intelligence.senate.gov] validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017,  that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.

 

...,,,

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
 

Its also a false claim that this private firm would be the only people who would know and not the US security and intelligence community. I think you invented that little claim just because you mistakenly believed Crowdstrike said something convenient doe tour argument that they did not?

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

People said that they had info on Hillary. That doesn't mean that they did. Grab a brain ffs.

And there are a lot of people who believe that meeting was a sting operation to try to get Trump's people to ask questions that gave their bogus operation some credibility.

In Mueller's own words, they had evidence that Russians offered the Trump campaign info but no info that they accepted the offer.

So the Russians meet with the Trump team to offer “dirt” on Hillary that they didn’t have for no reason, then team Trump tried to lie about even having the meeting telling several different versions in the space of a few days as more facts and emails emerged in the New York Times and you want is to think its completely unrelated to the hack?  Nobody intelligent thinks the Russia meeting was a sting operation that’s just more of the crackpot rights tin foil hat talk  

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Hillary funnelling money, influence or favours through to Russians apparently is, based on the bajillion-dollar investigation we saw protracted over 3 years to find out of there was any Russian collusion.

What she did was the textbook definition of what Trump was accused of.

Uh no. There’s no evidence anything was funnelled from Hillary to any Russians let alone the Russian government.

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

The fact that they were caught, and that they admitted to lying to the FISA court to get Trump actually proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the FBI were hostile actors. The texts between Strzok and Page also proved that they were hostile actors.

 

The only lie was that one guy changed an email to say Carter Page had not previously been an informant when i  fact he had.  Its a long way from there to “the whole investigation is baseless” especially when several dozen people including  8 Trump staff get indicted.   

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2021 by BeaverFever

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There you go moving the goalposts again. You made up the claim that they paid Russians for the info. You just said if you got caught lying you’d never live it down and here you are lying. An accusation that you completely make up with zero evidence is a lie, even though you really really really hope it's true. 

Not a chance simpleton. 

They did 'pay' Russians. Hillary and the DNC just didn't e-transfer money right from Hillary's account to Russian agents though, they were secretive about, because they're not retarded.

You might choose not to secretive about buying fentanyl or human trafficking, maybe you'd even declare income from those things on your T4. Good for you.  Hillary tried to cover her tracks. 

 

Quote

 

The warrants were based on many pieces of evidence including papadopolous own drunken bragging, not just the Steele dossier

Ooh a hearsay case. I'm sure that the FISA court is all over those. 

Just kidding. That was sarcasm because I didn't want to just point out the blatant stupidity of your comment too harshly. 

Quote

 And the claim that the Republican head of the FBI was trying to influence the election in favour of Hillary makes no sense especially since he did more than anyone to tile the election against her when just days before the election he announced he wasn’t reopening the investigation into her emails (he then found nothing). 

1) There are lots of never-Trumper in the GOP

2) Whatever you may see with hindsight, the FBI obviously didn't see with foresight. 

There was a high-profile claim against Hillary and they thought that they needed to open a fake investigation into it so that they could exonerate her. It backfired. That's good for America.  

 

Quote

 

 

 

I already provided you the quote and link tot eh crowdstrike website where they say the exact opposite. Dis you forget already?  They go into quite a bit of detail so here’s just an excerpt:
 

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC? 

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.....

We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report [intelligence.senate.gov] validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017,  that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.

 

...,,, 

Oooh evidence. Big deal. They couldn't say for certain though, their CEO stated that under oath in court. 

There are evidence of a lot of things.

I'm a Trump supporter. Does that mean I have Pelosi's laptop? Most people would say that's not enough evidence, but I'd be surprised if you didn't think that it was. 

Quote

 

Its also a false claim that this private firm would be the only people who would know and not the US security and intelligence community. I think you invented that little claim just because you mistakenly believed Crowdstrike said something convenient doe tour argument that they did not? 

I typed this slowly so that you could read it:

Quote

Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

The CEO of Crowdstrike lead the remediation and forensic analysis. Do you know what that means?

He said they didn't have concrete evidence. Do you know what that means?

Among other things, it means that you're a liar, as usual, and I'm correct, as usual. 

 

Quote

So the Russians meet with the Trump team to offer “dirt” on Hillary that they didn’t have for no reason, then team Trump tried to lie about even having the meeting telling several different versions in the space of a few days as more facts and emails emerged in the New York Times and you want is to think its completely unrelated to the hack?  Nobody intelligent thinks the Russia meeting was a sting operation that’s just more of the crackpot rights tin foil hat talk  

The meeting, or possibly the attempt at entrapment, happened after the info was leaked. So what? 

Don't take off your tinfoil hat though Beave. CNN said that all the cool kids are wearing them. 

Quote

Uh no. There’s no evidence anything was funnelled from Hillary to any Russians let alone the Russian government.

Uh, get your head out of the sand, that's old news. No one is denying it but you. Not even Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, Hillary Clinton, the DNC or Christopher Steele are denying that Hillary covertly paid Steele and Steele got some of his disinformation from Russians. 

If there was a law firm that got Trump's money and Trump got info through Russian sources from that transaction to influence the election, that would be collusion. I'm 100% sure that you'd piece it together if this was all based on rumours from anonymous sources, but when it's actual documented fact about Hillary it's just to hazy for you. Oooh shocker. 

(And like I said before, no one does any work at that level without receiving consideration in some form, be it money or favours. No one. Hillary's money ended up buying Russian disinformation and that's a fact that you need to come to grips with. Cry me a river Beave.) 

Quote

The only lie was that one guy changed an email to say Carter Page had not previously been an informant when i  fact he had.  Its a long way from there to “the whole investigation is baseless” especially when several dozen people including  8 Trump staff get indicted.

The Steele info was presented as partially verified and independently corroborated and that was false. Exculpatory evidence was withheld from the FISA court. An FBI lawyer lied to the FISA court. FBI bias was all over the investigation, Strzok's texts prove as much. 

The whole investigation was based on lies and bullshit. At the very best, some of the items in it were loosely corroborated, most notably by hearsay. 

At the end of the investigation there was absolutely no evidence that Trump colluded. Mueller and the Dems and their idiotic sycophants are still moping. Only you still believe. 

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

This is a final warning:  Do not pepper your posts with snarky personal attacks. 

[BeaverFever]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

They did 'pay' Russians. Hillary and the DNC just didn't e-transfer money right from Hillary's account to Russian agents though, they were secretive about, because they're not retarded.

Once again you’re speculating and stating as fact. Do you jave proof any Russians were paid?  I note the Steele dossier only mentions “senior western hotel staff”. But once again YOU know there were Russians and they were paid money that came from Hillary. Hillarious!

 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Quote

 

Ooh a hearsay case. I'm sure that the FISA court is all over those. 

Just kidding. That was sarcasm because I didn't want to just point out the blatant stupidity of your comment too harshly. 

Bragging about crimes your group is involved with isn’t hearsay. P told the Australian about the hacked email in early May, the Russians dumped the emails via wikileaks and DCLeaks in late July which is when the Aussies notified the FBI. And Crossfire Hurricane was opened.  P. knew about the emails almost 2 months in advance of the public finding out.  Note that DNC and US intelligence authorities had only learned about the emails being stolen in April. Clearly P. had imsider info  

 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Whatever you may see with hindsight, the FBI obviously didn't see with foresight. 

There was a high-profile claim against Hillary and they thought that they needed to open a fake investigation into it so that they could exonerate her. It backfired. That's good for America.  

No clearly they undestood  it would be extremely damaging to Hillary’s campaign just days before the election.  Everybody understands that. And you obviously don’t know the facts of what happened you’re in such an information vacuum.  They announced the new investigation RIGHT BEFORE the election which destroyed her chances and cleared her AFTER the election was over. You are incorrect that it was  “a fake investigation” they just didn’t find anything except copies of emails they already had.  They announced the investigation PROACTIVELY not in reaction to stories in the press. Once again you’re inventing things. 
 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Oooh evidence. Big deal. They couldn't say for certain though, their CEO stated that under oath in court. 

There are evidence of a lot of things.

Yeah we know you Trump supporters don’t rely on evidence for your beliefs and you can’t grasp why others do. But that is how the world works. 
 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The CEO of Crowdstrike lead the remediation and forensic analysis. Do you know what that means?

He said they didn't have concrete evidence. Do you know what that means?

Among other things, it means that you're a liar, as usual, and I'm correct, as usual. 

LMAO!!!  it means you don’t understand  what you’re copy-pasting as usual.   Nowhere does he say he’s uncertain that they wee Russians   His testimony On page 24:  

HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.  And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence. 

 

And then they go on to say the following  pay close attention to the second part  you’re so despeto apologize for Russia it’s pathetic “oh they didn’t witness the crime as it was occurring  they only investigated after the crime happened that means inconclusive evidence !”  Guess Ill start murdeing my enemies now cuz apparently unless there’s a cop to witness it as it occurs they can’t arrest me on evidence later.  New rules are probably

only for Republicans and Russians only I’m sure. LMAO

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32)  and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, theIntelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network? 

No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The meeting, or possibly the attempt at entrapment, happened after the info was leaked. So what? 

Entrapment lol there’s what you need your tin foil hat for. Putin clearly wanted Trump to win why would he try to entrap him?  Why would Trump and his team first deny the meeting and then tell so many different conflicting and changing stories about the meeting?  “A meeting to discuss Russian adoptions” LMAO that was my favourite version.  Was that version 2 or 4?  They’re all such a blur. And the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya who organized that meeting is now an indicted criminal who fled back to Russia.  By the way she had a client that was being prosecuted in the US for laundering money stolen from Magnitsky funneled through New York real estate deals.  Trump fired the US attorney prosecuting the case and the deal was then settled for less than  3% of the amount originally sought. Convenient!

 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Uh, get your head out of the sand, that's old news. No one is denying it but you. Not even Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie, Hillary Clinton, the DNC or Christopher Steele are denying that Hillary covertly paid Steele and Steele got some of his disinformation from Russians. 

It may make “make sense” to you that that’s what happened but speculation is not fact - you have problems understanding that - and there are plenty of other explanations including that tje people who passed the info weren’t even Russians. The part where Russians were paid is made up by you. FULL STOP.

 

 

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The Steele info was presented as partially verified and independently corroborated and that was false. Exculpatory evidence was withheld from the FISA court. An FBI lawyer lied to the FISA court. FBI bias was all over the investigation, Strzok's texts prove as much. 

The whole investigation was based on lies and bullshit. At the very best, some of the items in it were loosely corroborated, most notably by hearsay. 

At the end of the investigation there was absolutely no evidence that Trump colluded. Mueller and the Dems and their idiotic sycophants are still moping. Only you still believe. 

Crossfire Hurricane investigation was started in July because of George P. There were 4 different FISA warrants issued for page later in the year and the first 2 were  perfectly valid. The second set to extend the surveillance another 6 months were the ones that were later found to be unjustified. 
 

Of note that same Justice Depr investigation criticizing the FISA warrants that you love to cite so much also confirmed that  the FBI was justified in opening the investigation in the first place. But of course you cherry-pick what you want to hear and discard the inconvenient facts like a true Trump supporter

[BeaverFever]

Don’t Impeach Trump: Treat Him Like a Civil War Traitor

Cristian Farias@cristianafariasJan. 12, 2021
 

 

...The unlikely wild card of forcing Vice-President Mike Pence to trigger the 25th Amendment, which might neutralize a president “unable” to discharge his duties, seems all but destined to fail.

But there’s another constitutional option, sitting right at the heart of the Reconstruction amendments, that offers Congress a potent, and less fraught, political weapon to punish the president for unleashing the violent mob that disrupted a solemn step in the peaceful transfer of power.

The 14th Amendment, which ensured citizenship and equality for Black people in the aftermath of the Civil War, also empowers Congress to banish from public life anyone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution yet has been found to “have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” By joint resolution in both houses of Congress, lawmakers could invoke Section 3 of the amendment and expeditiously prohibit Trump from holding office ever again, effectively preventing him from running for president in 2024, as he has considered doing. By its plain terms, Section 3 would bar Trump from holding “any office … under the United States.”

Such a resolution likely wouldn’t remove Trump from office now. Yet realistically, neither would impeachment, as a Senate trial may be put off until after theinauguration — or maybe even after Biden’s first 100 days in office, as House Majority Whip James Clyburn indicatedmight happen. Biden, for his part, doesn’t want his own agenda derailed, however the newly Democratic-controlled Senate decides to proceed. A declaration of Trump’s ineligibility by both houses of Congress under Section 3, however, can move fast — and would send a powerful signal to the American public, and the rest of the world, that the violence and death that descended on the Capitol were an affront to the nation....

 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/dont-impeach-trump-for-insurrection-use-the-14th-amendment.html

[sharkman]

Don't worry Beave, Trump will be back in the saddle soon enough...

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, sharkman said:

Don't worry Beave, Trump will be back in the saddle soon enough...

Wanna bet?  You looking to end up $200 in the hole? ?

[sharkman]

No no, I would hate to put that big of a hit on your wallet as you try to pay off Christmas.  I’m considering having you make a donation to Trump’s campaign .  

[WestCanMan]

10 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 Do you jave proof any Russians were paid?  

OMG, this is as bad as your blatant ignorance regarding Biden's lie that he didn't know his son had a $30-50K/month job in the Ukraine. You're not even at square 1 in this debate and you're acting like you're the expert. How can you know so little so late in the game? This has been known for years.

It's not my job to provide links to get you up to speed on the very basic elements of this discussion Beave. Go read.

Quote

HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.  And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence. 

 

And then they go on to say the following  pay close attention to the second part  you’re so despeto apologize for Russia it’s pathetic “oh they didn’t witness the crime as it was occurring  they only investigated after the crime happened that means inconclusive evidence !”  Guess Ill start murdeing my enemies now cuz apparently unless there’s a cop to witness it as it occurs they can’t arrest me on evidence later.  New rules are probably

only for Republicans and Russians only I’m sure. LMAO

Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?

Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32)  and that data had clearly left the network. Also, on page 2, theIntelligence Community Assessment also confirmed that the Russian intelligence agency GRU “had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.”

Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network? 

No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders

 

Now you're lying again.

Henry said they had no concrete evidence. Full stop.

Imagine this in court: "We had indicators, we didn't have concrete evidence, can you please convict the accused now your honour?"

Go fish Beave. 

FYI the DNC never gave up their actual servers. There were over 100 of them, and they just gave Crowdstrike copies of  (some? or all of?) them. 

And fwiw, even if Russia did hack Hillary or the DNC, which is a distinct possibility, that doesn't mean that they did it at Trump's behest. 

Assange said the info was leaked, and right now no one can say for certain that he's lying. The FBI's credibility is 100% shot so their input is worthless.

[BeaverFever]

40 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG, this is as bad as your blatant ignorance regarding Biden's lie that he didn't know his son had a $30-50K/month job in the Ukraine. You're not even at square 1 in this debate and you're acting like you're the expert. How can you know so little so late in the game? This has been known for years.

It's not my job to provide links to get you up to speed on the very basic elements of this discussion Beave. Go read.

Now you're lying again.

Henry said they had no concrete evidence. Full stop.

Imagine this in court: "We had indicators, we didn't have concrete evidence, can you please convict the accused now your honour?"

Go fish Beave. 

FYI the DNC never gave up their actual servers. There were over 100 of them, and they just gave Crowdstrike copies of  (some? or all of?) them. 

And fwiw, even if Russia did hack Hillary or the DNC, which is a distinct possibility, that doesn't mean that they did it at Trump's behest. 

Assange said the info was leaked, and right now no one can say for certain that he's lying. The FBI's credibility is 100% shot so their input is worthless.

LMAO I’m lying by providing a direct quote from Crowdstrike?  Once again you’re too simple to understand what’s being said. An accused killer’s DNA evidence left at the crime scene isn’t “concrete” proof that they actually killed the victim, its only proof that they’re were at the scene   By your logic there’s no such thing as concrete evidence of anything unless it’s recorded in real time...at least when Republicans or Russians are concerned   
 

To summarize:

1) Its an accepted fact that Russia hacked the DNC.  Literally every agency and authority qualified to hold an opinion has testified to this fact.  You,  the non-educated non-expert in any subject woth zero first hand or second hand info think you know better and can parse legal concepts and terms that the rest of the world can’t. But you’re wrong

 

2) Nobody said Russia did it at Trumps behest. Russia did it at its own behest then tried to trade the emails to Trump soon after. The Trump team also had advance knowledge that the stolen emails would be provided to Wikileaks/DCLeaks

Edited January 13, 2021 by BeaverFever

[Argus]

10 hours ago, sharkman said:

Don't worry Beave, Trump will be back in the saddle soon enough...

LOL! The idea of that fat city slicker from downtown Manhattan on a horse! LOL! 

He'd need a gold saddle, just to begin with. And the horse would have to be HUUUUUGE!

[Aristides]

Trump has weakened his country more than any other president. He has emboldened its enemies and alienated its allies. He denied a pandemic which is now killing over 3000 Americans a day and hasn't even mentioned it since early December. His government has been subjected to the largest computer hack in its history and all he is interested in is overturning an election using mob violence led by bikers, Proud Boys and other white supremists. People waving Confederate flags and wearing Camp Auschwitz and 6MWE shirts. Hundreds of thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Canadians) died fighting those bastards. Americans liberated the Dachau and Buchenwald concentration camps, Canadians liberated Westerbork and helped liberate Bergen Belsen  and Trump supporters, some of them here try to justify what happened on the 6th by yelling, LOOK OVER THERE.

 

FFS, what's it going to take?

Edited January 13, 2021 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

LMAO I’m lying by providing a direct quote from Crowdstrike?  Once again you’re too simple to understand what’s being said. An accused killer’s DNA evidence left at the crime scene isn’t “concrete” proof that they actually killed the victim, its only proof that they’re were at the scene   By your logic there’s no such thing as concrete evidence of anything unless it’s recorded in real time...at least when Republicans or Russians are concerned   

You're lying by selectively choosing a quote that's suggestive and saying that it trumps a conclusive quote. 

"We have no concrete evidence" is declarative. "We had indicators" is merely suggestive. 

Quote

To summarize:

1) Its an accepted fact that Russia hacked the DNC.  Literally every agency and authority qualified to hold an opinion has testified to this fact.  You,  the non-educated non-expert in any subject woth zero first hand or second hand info think you know better and can parse legal concepts and terms that the rest of the world can’t. But you’re wrong

1) The world's foremost expert on the matter is the person who led the forensic analysis. That's an accepted fact.

When the world's foremost expert makes a declarative, definitive, explicit statement like: "We have no concrete evidence" it means that - they don't have any concrete evidence.

I don't need to be there when he's analyzing to data to understand his summary of it.

I don't need to be an IT expert to understand the English language. "We don't have concrete evidence" means the same thing to a biologist, a chemist, a climatologist, a cartographer, a deli counter cashier and a dog groomer. 

2) Cite me where a person with more intimate knowledge of the forensic analysis of the server said that Henry was wrong, under oath.

Quote

2) Nobody said Russia did it at Trumps behest. Russia did it at its own behest then tried to trade the emails to Trump soon after. The Trump team also had advance knowledge that the stolen emails would be provided to Wikileaks/DCLeaks

1) You're still grasping at straws

2) Provide a cite proving that Tump's team knew that the emails were going to be leaked before they were leaked

3) FYI just because information was hacked doesn't mean that it wasn't also leaked. If you hack into a computer and steal files it doesn't mean that you leaked them as well.

Someone else with legitimate access to the same computer can end up leaking some of those files, all of them, or even more files than you stole in the first place. 

Just remember that Bernie had far more grass roots support than Hillary, and a lot of people with access to those files would have been Bernie supporters. 

 

Another thing - Assange said that he got his info from "a leak" and his word is worth more than the FBI's on this account because the FBI has already been caught committing crimes on this case. 

Assange is a person who leaks information to the world and he has never been credibly accused of falsifying any of it. 

[Michael Hardner]

49 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 FFS, what's it going to take?

Stop talking to anyone who follows Qanon, who still supports rogue presidents and so on.  You're throwing good will after bad will.  They never believed in compromise... cut them out of the process.

Democracy is meant for people who can talk and reason.

[sharkman]

And democracy does not close down social networking sites like Parler.  It does not persecute conservatives on social networking sites for saying things like "voter fraud" or "stop the steal".   Lets say that those phrases are incorrect.  They are not dangerous.  No they are not, give your head a shake.  Think about it.  Think harder, Hardner.  They are just simple opinions that are wrong.  I am not talking about Trump here, but about millions of Americans who are not allowed to utter these phrases on youtube and other sites. 

Freedom of speech.  It doesn't exist in the news media either, right now.  One day you will realize that this nonsense was nonsense.

[Aristides]

Overturning elections by force is not democracy.

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, sharkman said:

And democracy does not close down social networking sites like Parler.  It does not persecute conservatives on social networking sites for saying things like "voter fraud" or "stop the steal".   Lets say that those phrases are incorrect.  They are not dangerous.  No they are not, give your head a shake.  Think about it.  Think harder, Hardner.  They are just simple opinions that are wrong.  I am not talking about Trump here, but about millions of Americans who are not allowed to utter these phrases on youtube and other sites. 

Freedom of speech.  It doesn't exist in the news media either, right now.  One day you will realize that this nonsense was nonsense.

People are still saying "Stop the Steal" and "Voter Fraud" on Twitter. 

Parler was shutdown for refusing to remove violent and abusive content and #45 was deplatformed for inciting a seditious mob and then saying they were "Special". 

Edited January 13, 2021 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, sharkman said:

1. And democracy does not close down social networking sites like Parler. 

2. It does not persecute conservatives on social networking sites for saying things like "voter fraud" or "stop the steal".   Lets say that those phrases are incorrect.  They are not dangerous.  No they are not, give your head a shake.  Think about it.  Think harder, Hardner.  They are just simple opinions that are wrong.  I am not talking about Trump here, but about millions of Americans who are not allowed to utter these phrases on youtube and other sites. 

3. Freedom of speech.  It doesn't exist in the news media either, right now.  One day you will realize that this nonsense was nonsense.

1. No, monopoly does.  Or in this case oligopoly.

2. Ok.  I'm saying don't talk with them, or deal with them.  Maybe Zuckerberg are the Twitter guy read my post.  Anyway, they choose who gets to talk on their platforms.

3. It never did, but as for the Trump cult I don't care about them. 

 

If you want to propose a redesign of the machine of democracy to accommodate wider views, I am with you but at this point I think too much trust has been lost to agree on anything.

[sharkman]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

Overturning elections by force is not democracy.

Rigging elections is not democracy.  

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, sharkman said:

Rigging elections is not democracy.  

Did you go to argus' link debugging the stolen election myths?

[Aristides]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

Overturning elections by force is not democracy.

Accusations need evidence. Multiple election officials from both parties in multiple states and 60 judges say you have none.  Even the Trump packed SCOTUS says you have no case. 

Edited January 14, 2021 by Aristides

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you go to argus' link debugging the stolen election myths?

Now that the myths have been debugged are they working properly? Maybe Trump should take them back to court.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, sharkman said:

Rigging elections is not democracy.  

Only people dumb enough to believe Trump think the election was rigged.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you go to argus' link debugging the stolen election myths?

He claims I'm in his ignore list - frequently. He seems frustrated when presented with facts and logic he can't reply or rebut. 

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

He claims I'm in his ignore list - frequently. He seems frustrated when presented with facts and logic he can't reply or rebut. 

@sharkman if you are considering armed rebellion or the support of same you may want to review this first:

https://jeff-jackson.medium.com/was-the-election-rigged-lets-take-a-look-sen-jeff-jackson-887b5b9b443e