If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?

[whichphilosophy]

You still can't read. The investigation into the source of the hack has concluded. The investigation into collusion and other related issues has not. The FBI has not predetermined anything. And, you again hypocritically cited Assange as proof the Russians didn't hack and then talked about the need for court established evidence, after I just pointed out that you did this.

Also note that you failed to admit your error in citing Clapper as evidence that Russia did not hack.

Here's another of your falsehoods,

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

Court evidence is not the only way something is established as fact. That's ludicrous. And during an impeachment, court standards of evidence are not required. You have been explained this multiple times by multiple people and yet repeated it again.

You don't acknowledge your many errors and falsehoods. Great role model for the Scientologists' idea of ethics.

Your reply is non specific so I shall include the following. If you need more information the Cornell University has the full IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE on its website.

IMPEACHMENT (OF PRESIDENT)
Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings followed by a trial in the Senate house which is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in a regular court. To recap, the Congress will first impeach the President and the Senate conducts the trial presided over by the Chief Justice. A 2/3 vote in the Senate is required to convict.

To further define analogous the following can apply depending on the context:

: comparable, similar, like, corresponding, related, equivalent, symmetrical, parallel,
In fact the way evidence is examined and determined by the Jury in the Senate is the same method that courts would use but is in a different setting. The following outlines the procedure where some of the requirements area modified with ‘unless otherwise ordered.’
The following may give rise to the concept that a Senate Trial is different to a court trial. Yes and No because the weight of evidence and irrefutable proof are still cornerstone.

See here where there are differences but by implication see the last paragraph which thus implies proper rules in evidence apply.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment
They argued the Senate's "power to try impeachments" imposed on the full Senate the obligation to conduct a full trial. The Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings and that Senators' political accountability was the only check on this authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials. The Court did not address the propriety of judicial review of the Senate's possible deviation from any explicit safeguard required by the Constitution for impeachment trials.

See also
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15615066/impeachment-trump-process-history

QUOTE But if you’re interested in understanding how impeachment works — if, for example, you are a White House lawyer — the important thing to know is that while it looks and feels a whole lot like a legal or judicial process, in practice it is dominated by politics from start to finish.

That’s because, rather than being run by any courts, impeachment and any ensuing presidential trial are carried out by the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are partisan bodies. END OF QUOTE

AGREEMENT THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE UPON

https://www.gop.com/wheres-the-beef-democrats-and-republicans-agree-theres-no-there-there/
Where’s The Beef?: Democrats And Republicans Agree There’s No There There

Allegations Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia Continue To Fall Apart As Democrats And Republicans Agree That There Is No Evidence The Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia

TOP TAKEAWAYS
• Multiple congressional investigations over the last few months have found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

• Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have stated there is no evidence of collusion took place.


• High level members of the intelligence community who served under President Obama have stated they have no seen no evidence of collusion.
_________________

The House Intelligence Committee Has Found No Evidence Of Collusion

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) Said "I Don't Have Conclusive Proof Of Collusion,"
Senator Lindsey Graham Has Said That He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Said In March He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia. "
UNQUOTE


SEE also the following which throws doubt on everything:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...ing-russian-hacking-2016-election-rigged.html

QUOTE Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.


Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016. UNQUOTE

And

QUOTE: The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.

It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THE NEW CIA/NSA/FBI REPORT IS WITHOUT VALUE. I BELIEVE THE CLASSIFIED REPORT PROBABLY INCLUDES SOLID EVIDENCE ON THE INTENSIVE AND BROAD-BASED CYBER WARFARE EFFORTS THAT RUSSIA, CHINA AND OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS IGNORED. UNQUOTE




The whole issue is still inconclusive. If you have any queries regarding the IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE you can look at sources such as the CORNELL UNIVERSITY website. The Media tends to misinterpret and misunderstand how IMPEACHMENT works.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Impeachment isn't entirely (or even a majority?) a legal matter as much as it is a political matter. And Trump's impeachment (he will resign before being impeached) will be about CYA maneuvers by the Republicans when he becomes too toxic.

As things stand, the Senate can find docs that show Trump is making a profit off of the White House and that he obstructed Justice with the firing of James Comey. There is more than enough black (Comey) and gray (DC hotel) to accept crimes have been committed. All the Senate needs to do is present the documents and the Senators can vote as they please. There is no appeal.

To put it simply, and truly people seem to not understand this crucial point, There are enough votes for Impeachment if the Senate wants to vote for Impeachment. The legal case is not nearly as important as some apparently think it needs to be. This isn't a Shadow of a Doubt deal. This is the Senate reviewing documentation and coming to a judgment. And in the last 60 years, that judgment? "Is the general populous's opinion on the President as such that the political consequences of impeaching a President are as such to warrant the action to protect the political party?" For Nixon, the answer was yes and he resigned. For Clinton it was no, and the Republicans failed to convict. For Trump, it keeps getting worse and worse.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Yeah, you keep saying this and continue to be wrong about it. It's a fact that the FBI has determined Russia did the hack.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

Experts??? :laughing-smiley-014 I thought you only cared about evidence that would conclusively hold up in court. Assange is an interested party, his word is worthless on this. He's the leaker conduit and he has shown a pro-Russia bias, strangely for someone who claims to care about government abuse of power. How would he even know if it were the Russians if they didn't advertise it to him? If he is colluding with them, then his word means nothing.

McAfee is a paranoid nutjob and he's only given an opinion with no facts to substantiate it. McAfee?????

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

Learn how to read for once or put down the bottle. We were talking about who did the hack, Clapper is talking about collusion. Those are not the same thing. On the point we were discussing, you must have missed that Clapper said the evidence was "overwhelming" that Russia did the hack.

And Clapper didn't say he knows there was no collusion, just that he wasn't aware of any convincing evidence. He also wasn't aware of the FBI investigation until this March. He doesn't know what the FBI has.

Pro tip: stop getting your talking points from Trump.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

No shit, it's ongoing, that's what everyone keeps trying to tell you. Stop pretending there is no case or no evidence because you personally haven't seen it. The investigation could take years to complete. Watergate was publicly investigated for over a year before Nixon resigned.

The FBI can pre-determine all it wants but it cannot produce anything that would hold water under scrutiny. This is why the investigation is going on.

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

We don't even know for sure who did this particular hack. Wiki-leaks didn't get this from the Russians, so it says, nor (so it says) did it receive anything from someone who they can determine received this from the Russians.

Pro-Russia has nothing to do with anything if Russia is not identified as the source.

As we know and repeat, the Russians and the USA are always trying to spy on each other and gain access to each others secrets but associating this alone is meaningless since in legal terms the FBI has not established Causation.

From a legal perspective, association with something does not automatically constitute Causation.

This is why the investigation is in progress not concluded.

Despite your protestations, the fact that the Russians did this is pretty well established. Despite your retreat into your odd legal maneuvering in order to relieve your own cognitive dissonance, the investigations you mention are looking for collusion, not to establish the perpetrators, which is already known. Besides the consensus of all major intelligence services in the US, AND several other western nations, which you can so easily dismiss simply because you haven't personally seen their data -never mind you've seen no data at all- you forget there are others that are experts in this domain, which you most assuredly are not. These include several well known and established cyber security firms, that are familiar with this territory. These firms include ThreatConnect , CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis. Secureworks was also involved in finding the method of attack used against the DNC. All of this is publicly available should you decide to disrobe from your barrister outfit, sit in front of a computer and verify this. OR, you can claim massive super duper conspiracy theory like most Trumpies do. Which is what I expect since you've been corrected on this point numerous times. So in a word, fuck your "legal perspective", which you pulled out of your ass, which means nothing from any actual legal standpoint, but which you think seems to be your get out of jail free card.

It was not a consensus of all Intelligence services. Clinton was wrong. It was only 3 of them and they produced nothing to support this.
Further none of these departments carried dissenting views or made attempts to co-author their research. 2 of these are the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/29/fbi-dhs-russian-hacking-report

The Microsoft report contains a history of the groups’ operation; a report by security analysts ThreatConnect describes the team’s modus operandi; and competing firm CrowdStrike detailed the attack on the Democratic National Committee shortly before subsequent breaches of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign were discovered.

Security experts on Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center.

Tom Killalea, former vice-president of security at Amazon and a Capital One board member, wrote: “Russian attack on DNC similar to so many other attacks in past 15yrs. Big question: Why such poor incident response?”

So as I keep mentioning the Russians, Chinese and even British plus several worldwide groups have been hacking or attempting to hack for a numerous number of years.

Clinton removed the immunity to hacking by not using a proper government website, hence contributing the possibility of a security breach in this respect.

Yet it is clear there is zero concreteness for collusion.

It is from the legal standpoint, and not from media sensationalism over nothingness.

So whether Trump and the Russians were together and the Russians specifically hacked Clinton is still non conclusive. See my earlier reply just before this one.

What we do know is through Hillary's ineptitude the personal site was laid bare for just about any hacker anyplace to do this.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Impeachment isn't entirely (or even a majority?) a legal matter as much as it is a political matter. And Trump's impeachment (he will resign before being impeached) will be about CYA maneuvers by the Republicans when he becomes too toxic.

As things stand, the Senate can find docs that show Trump is making a profit off of the White House and that he obstructed Justice with the firing of James Comey. There is more than enough black (Comey) and gray (DC hotel) to accept crimes have been committed. All the Senate needs to do is present the documents and the Senators can vote as they please. There is no appeal.

To put it simply, and truly people seem to not understand this crucial point, There are enough votes for Impeachment if the Senate wants to vote for Impeachment. The legal case is not nearly as important as some apparently think it needs to be. This isn't a Shadow of a Doubt deal. This is the Senate reviewing documentation and coming to a judgment. And in the last 60 years, that judgment? "Is the general populous's opinion on the President as such that the political consequences of impeaching a President are as such to warrant the action to protect the political party?" For Nixon, the answer was yes and he resigned. For Clinton it was no, and the Republicans failed to convict. For Trump, it keeps getting worse and worse.

The media is getting louder but things have not changed. No evidence of collusion which even Democrats agree (see a couple of posts back). Hacking has been ongoing for a number of years. Clinton left her site open (as it was not a secured government one) for attacks from any 14 year old hacker and above. As I mentioned 17 Agencies did not concur. Only 3 did but did not compare notes. As also reported there was no room for dissent in the reports which is standard.

 

[LordKiran]

I resent this notion. If I voted for anybody but Hillary, I voted for someone other than Hillary. That is NOT the same as voting for Trump, even if it leads to the same outcome. Again, your candidate is not and was never entitled to support from the electorate if the electorate does not consider her worthy of such support. That simple. Blame your candidate for not being good enough, perhaps?

Yeah, a political candidate with dubious business dealings, bad general approval ratings, with a somewhat limited level of experience in elected government. Wait... who are we talking about?[1]

The issue was that Trump was wholly incapable of holding the office... as we have seen.[2] Hillary Clinton could do the job.[3] A vote for anyone but Clinton was a vote for a man that had no business being in the White House as a visitor, forget about being in charge of the building.[4] He violated the Constitution within one month of being in charge by asking the FBI Director to stop the Flynn investigation (of which we now know about the Kuschner/Flynn meeting with the Russian Ambassador... and of which Comey must have known as well).[5]

So don't give us this self-righteous bullshit. If you didn't vote for Clinton, you allowed this reckless person to become President.[6] You were wrong, we told you so, fucking man up about it![7]

1. You tell me.

2. Which is why I didn't vote for him

3. So could a lot of people, yet you'd gripe at me just the same if I wrote in Bernie Sanders on my ballot. Consequentially, this point is moot.

4. Factually incorrect. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump and nothing else.

5. Good thing I didn't vote for him then.

6. Jimmy I'm a single person, if I had voted it wouldn't have made a difference in the ultimate outcome. Now I know you're just itching to give me some idealistic spiel about how "Every vote counts." or some other bullshit, in which case I suggest you fly your happy ass out to PA and tell another 60-80k people who couldn't be bothered about how this is their fault and they need to own it. Otherwise, blow me.

7. See, you say that and yet here we are: Trump has gotten very little done in the way of policy. He'll do some damage but nothing permanent. Meanwhile the Clintonites are out, and the democratic party is seeing a slow overtake by a new type of democrat who's interests are more closely aligned with their voter base. Time will tell if this will pan out in the long run, but from where I sit, my gamble is about to pay off over the next few years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is from the legal standpoint, and not from media sensationalism over nothingness.

A private citizen asking or a secret communications line to Moscow during the transition... completely nothing to see here. This is why the CIA is going bonkers and leaking like there is no tomorrow!

So whether Trump and the Russians were together and the Russians specifically hacked Clinton is still non conclusive. See my earlier reply just before this one.

Except there were signs people in Trump circles knew something. Roger Stone tweeted on August 21st, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

The Podesta emails would be released almost immediately after the Trump 'pussygate' video was released. So not only did Roger Stone appear to indicate knowledge of a breach in emails (which was a crime, by the way), but the release of said emails was obviously a political cover maneuver to help Trump, and had nothing to do with trying to help the world know about how the DNC wronged Sanders.

 

[blastula]

You still can't read. The investigation into the source of the hack has concluded. The investigation into collusion and other related issues has not. The FBI has not predetermined anything. And, you again hypocritically cited Assange as proof the Russians didn't hack and then talked about the need for court established evidence, after I just pointed out that you did this.

Also note that you failed to admit your error in citing Clapper as evidence that Russia did not hack.

Here's another of your falsehoods,



Court evidence is not the only way something is established as fact. That's ludicrous. And during an impeachment, court standards of evidence are not required. You have been explained this multiple times by multiple people and yet repeated it again.

You don't acknowledge your many errors and falsehoods. Great role model for the Scientologists' idea of ethics.

Your reply is non specific so I shall include the following. If you need more information the Cornell University has the full IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE on its website.

IMPEACHMENT (OF PRESIDENT)
Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings followed by a trial in the Senate house which is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in a regular court. To recap, the Congress will first impeach the President and the Senate conducts the trial presided over by the Chief Justice. A 2/3 vote in the Senate is required to convict.

To further define analogous the following can apply depending on the context:

: comparable, similar, like, corresponding, related, equivalent, symmetrical, parallel,
In fact the way evidence is examined and determined by the Jury in the Senate is the same method that courts would use but is in a different setting. The following outlines the procedure where some of the requirements area modified with ‘unless otherwise ordered.’
The following may give rise to the concept that a Senate Trial is different to a court trial. Yes and No because the weight of evidence and irrefutable proof are still cornerstone.

See here where there are differences but by implication see the last paragraph which thus implies proper rules in evidence apply.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment
They argued the Senate's "power to try impeachments" imposed on the full Senate the obligation to conduct a full trial. The Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings and that Senators' political accountability was the only check on this authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials. The Court did not address the propriety of judicial review of the Senate's possible deviation from any explicit safeguard required by the Constitution for impeachment trials.

See also
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15615066/impeachment-trump-process-history

QUOTE But if you’re interested in understanding how impeachment works — if, for example, you are a White House lawyer — the important thing to know is that while it looks and feels a whole lot like a legal or judicial process, in practice it is dominated by politics from start to finish.

That’s because, rather than being run by any courts, impeachment and any ensuing presidential trial are carried out by the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are partisan bodies. END OF QUOTE

AGREEMENT THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE UPON

https://www.gop.com/wheres-the-beef-democrats-and-republicans-agree-theres-no-there-there/
Where’s The Beef?: Democrats And Republicans Agree There’s No There There

Allegations Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia Continue To Fall Apart As Democrats And Republicans Agree That There Is No Evidence The Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia

TOP TAKEAWAYS
• Multiple congressional investigations over the last few months have found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

• Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have stated there is no evidence of collusion took place.


• High level members of the intelligence community who served under President Obama have stated they have no seen no evidence of collusion.
_________________

The House Intelligence Committee Has Found No Evidence Of Collusion

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) Said "I Don't Have Conclusive Proof Of Collusion,"
Senator Lindsey Graham Has Said That He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Said In March He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia. "
UNQUOTE


SEE also the following which throws doubt on everything:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...ing-russian-hacking-2016-election-rigged.html

QUOTE Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.


Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016. UNQUOTE

And

QUOTE: The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.

It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THE NEW CIA/NSA/FBI REPORT IS WITHOUT VALUE. I BELIEVE THE CLASSIFIED REPORT PROBABLY INCLUDES SOLID EVIDENCE ON THE INTENSIVE AND BROAD-BASED CYBER WARFARE EFFORTS THAT RUSSIA, CHINA AND OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS IGNORED. UNQUOTE




The whole issue is still inconclusive. If you have any queries regarding the IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE you can look at sources such as the CORNELL UNIVERSITY website. The Media tends to misinterpret and misunderstand how IMPEACHMENT works.

Did you read a single thing you quoted? It shows you are wrong. I ask one more time, what is your deal? Are you a having a laugh? Are you that drunk all the time?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did you read a single thing you quoted? It shows you are wrong. I ask one more time, what is your deal? Are you a having a laugh? Are you that drunk all the time?

wp has a political agenda. In a thread about Greenland they inserted a needless and unrelated jab at the EU.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Impeachment isn't entirely (or even a majority?) a legal matter as much as it is a political matter. And Trump's impeachment (he will resign before being impeached) will be about CYA maneuvers by the Republicans when he becomes too toxic.

As things stand, the Senate can find docs that show Trump is making a profit off of the White House and that he obstructed Justice with the firing of James Comey. There is more than enough black (Comey) and gray (DC hotel) to accept crimes have been committed. All the Senate needs to do is present the documents and the Senators can vote as they please. There is no appeal.

To put it simply, and truly people seem to not understand this crucial point, There are enough votes for Impeachment if the Senate wants to vote for Impeachment. The legal case is not nearly as important as some apparently think it needs to be. This isn't a Shadow of a Doubt deal. This is the Senate reviewing documentation and coming to a judgment. And in the last 60 years, that judgment? "Is the general populous's opinion on the President as such that the political consequences of impeaching a President are as such to warrant the action to protect the political party?" For Nixon, the answer was yes and he resigned. For Clinton it was no, and the Republicans failed to convict. For Trump, it keeps getting worse and worse.

The media is getting louder but things have not changed.

The CIA and White House are leaking at unprecedented levels. That much has changed. We are seeing a CIA that is panicking and now we are seeing hints as to why.

No evidence of collusion which even Democrats agree (see a couple of posts back). Hacking has been ongoing for a number of years. Clinton left her site open (as it was not a secured government one) for attacks from any 14 year old hacker and above. As I mentioned 17 Agencies did not concur. Only 3 did but did not compare notes. As also reported there was no room for dissent in the reports which is standard.

Roger Stone indicated a leak regarding Podesta's emails over a month before they were leaked.

You seem to love taking one or two bits and try to redraw a context, where as the entire picture indicates something much larger going on regarding the Trump Admin and Russia. Trump and the White House have obstructed multiple investigations into the Flynn investigation and we have learned that Kuscher (of all people) wanted a secret Russian run back channel to Moscow. And we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, a political candidate with dubious business dealings, bad general approval ratings, with a somewhat limited level of experience in elected government. Wait... who are we talking about?[1]

The issue was that Trump was wholly incapable of holding the office... as we have seen.[2] Hillary Clinton could do the job.[3] A vote for anyone but Clinton was a vote for a man that had no business being in the White House as a visitor, forget about being in charge of the building.[4] He violated the Constitution within one month of being in charge by asking the FBI Director to stop the Flynn investigation (of which we now know about the Kuschner/Flynn meeting with the Russian Ambassador... and of which Comey must have known as well).[5]

So don't give us this self-righteous bullshit. If you didn't vote for Clinton, you allowed this reckless person to become President.[6] You were wrong, we told you so, fucking man up about it![7]

1. You tell me.

2. Which is why I didn't vote for him

3. So could a lot of people, yet you'd gripe at me just the same if I wrote in Bernie Sanders on my ballot. Consequentially, this point is moot.

4. Factually incorrect. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump and nothing else.

5. Good thing I didn't vote for him then.

6. Jimmy I'm a single person, if I had voted it wouldn't have made a difference in the ultimate outcome. Now I know you're just itching to give me some idealistic spiel about how "Every vote counts." or some other bullshit, in which case I suggest you fly your happy ass out to PA and tell another 60-80k people who couldn't be bothered about how this is their fault and they need to own it. Otherwise, blow me.

7. See, you say that and yet here we are: Trump has gotten very little done in the way of policy. He'll do some damage but nothing permanent. Meanwhile the Clintonites are out, and the democratic party is seeing a slow overtake by a new type of democrat who's interests are more closely aligned with their voter base. Time will tell if this will pan out in the long run, but from where I sit, my gamble is about to pay off over the next few years.

You were wrong, we told you, man up.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A private citizen asking or a secret communications line to Moscow during the transition... completely nothing to see here. This is why the CIA is going bonkers and leaking like there is no tomorrow!

So whether Trump and the Russians were together and the Russians specifically hacked Clinton is still non conclusive. See my earlier reply just before this one.

Except there were signs people in Trump circles knew something. Roger Stone tweeted on August 21st, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

The Podesta emails would be released almost immediately after the Trump 'pussygate' video was released. So not only did Roger Stone appear to indicate knowledge of a breach in emails (which was a crime, by the way), but the release of said emails was obviously a political cover maneuver to help Trump, and had nothing to do with trying to help the world know about how the DNC wronged Sanders.

Are these emails now available?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your reply is non specific so I shall include the following. If you need more information the Cornell University has the full IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE on its website.

IMPEACHMENT (OF PRESIDENT)
Impeachment is analogous to indictment in regular court proceedings followed by a trial in the Senate house which is analogous to the trial before judge and jury in a regular court. To recap, the Congress will first impeach the President and the Senate conducts the trial presided over by the Chief Justice. A 2/3 vote in the Senate is required to convict.

To further define analogous the following can apply depending on the context:

: comparable, similar, like, corresponding, related, equivalent, symmetrical, parallel,
In fact the way evidence is examined and determined by the Jury in the Senate is the same method that courts would use but is in a different setting. The following outlines the procedure where some of the requirements area modified with ‘unless otherwise ordered.’
The following may give rise to the concept that a Senate Trial is different to a court trial. Yes and No because the weight of evidence and irrefutable proof are still cornerstone.

See here where there are differences but by implication see the last paragraph which thus implies proper rules in evidence apply.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment
They argued the Senate's "power to try impeachments" imposed on the full Senate the obligation to conduct a full trial. The Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings and that Senators' political accountability was the only check on this authority. Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials. The Court did not address the propriety of judicial review of the Senate's possible deviation from any explicit safeguard required by the Constitution for impeachment trials.

See also
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15615066/impeachment-trump-process-history

QUOTE But if you’re interested in understanding how impeachment works — if, for example, you are a White House lawyer — the important thing to know is that while it looks and feels a whole lot like a legal or judicial process, in practice it is dominated by politics from start to finish.

That’s because, rather than being run by any courts, impeachment and any ensuing presidential trial are carried out by the House of Representatives and the Senate, which are partisan bodies. END OF QUOTE

AGREEMENT THERE IS NOTHING TO AGREE UPON

https://www.gop.com/wheres-the-beef-democrats-and-republicans-agree-theres-no-there-there/
Where’s The Beef?: Democrats And Republicans Agree There’s No There There

Allegations Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia Continue To Fall Apart As Democrats And Republicans Agree That There Is No Evidence The Trump Campaign Colluded With Russia

TOP TAKEAWAYS
• Multiple congressional investigations over the last few months have found no evidence the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election.

• Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have stated there is no evidence of collusion took place.


• High level members of the intelligence community who served under President Obama have stated they have no seen no evidence of collusion.
_________________

The House Intelligence Committee Has Found No Evidence Of Collusion

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) Said "I Don't Have Conclusive Proof Of Collusion,"
Senator Lindsey Graham Has Said That He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Said In March He Has Seen No Evidence Of Collusion Between The Trump Campaign And Russia. "
UNQUOTE


SEE also the following which throws doubt on everything:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...ing-russian-hacking-2016-election-rigged.html

QUOTE Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.


Hoekstra gave an answer many viewers of "The Kelly File" did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016. UNQUOTE

And

QUOTE: The content of the declassified report was underwhelming. Although the report made serious accusations of Russian interference in the election, it did not back them up with evidence. And, as Hoekstra also noted in his Fox News interview, the report made some dubious arguments that Russia succeeded in influencing the election using its RT cable channel, a Russian propaganda tool that is only taken seriously in the United States by the far left.

It’s also troubling that the unclassified report does not mention the extremely weak internet security of Clinton’s private email server, the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. This makes it impossible to determine whether the alleged hacking and leaking of Democratic emails was more Russia and other hostile actors exploiting this carelessness rather than a deliberate and robust Russian operation to interfere with the election.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THE NEW CIA/NSA/FBI REPORT IS WITHOUT VALUE. I BELIEVE THE CLASSIFIED REPORT PROBABLY INCLUDES SOLID EVIDENCE ON THE INTENSIVE AND BROAD-BASED CYBER WARFARE EFFORTS THAT RUSSIA, CHINA AND OTHER STATES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS IGNORED. UNQUOTE




The whole issue is still inconclusive. If you have any queries regarding the IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE you can look at sources such as the CORNELL UNIVERSITY website. The Media tends to misinterpret and misunderstand how IMPEACHMENT works.

Did you read a single thing you quoted? It shows you are wrong. I ask one more time, what is your deal? Are you a having a laugh? Are you that drunk all the time?

I provided that there is no collusion demonstrable nor is it clear regarding the hacking.

I provided the structure on how an impeachment is carried out and corrected the false statement of 17 agencies concurring in their investigation into the hacking in that there were just 3 who provided no back up.
Someone claiming isn't in itself proof.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A private citizen asking or a secret communications line to Moscow during the transition... completely nothing to see here. This is why the CIA is going bonkers and leaking like there is no tomorrow!

Except there were signs people in Trump circles knew something. Roger Stone tweeted on August 21st, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

The Podesta emails would be released almost immediately after the Trump 'pussygate' video was released. So not only did Roger Stone appear to indicate knowledge of a breach in emails (which was a crime, by the way), but the release of said emails was obviously a political cover maneuver to help Trump, and had nothing to do with trying to help the world know about how the DNC wronged Sanders.

Are these emails now available?

Yes, the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. Roger Stone Tweeted something that indicated he knew it would be forthcoming. It is all in the wild.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Are these emails now available?

Yes, the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. Roger Stone Tweeted something that indicated he knew it would be forthcoming. It is all in the wild.

The problem is this is very scant and speculative regarding Podesta in the barrel.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/

The CNN report tends to confuse rather than clarify.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Are these emails now available?

Yes, the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. Roger Stone Tweeted something that indicated he knew it would be forthcoming. It is all in the wild.

Since both parties are just giving alternative versions at this time, the CNN article simply confuses, not clarifies.

See:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/

 

[blastula]

Did you read a single thing you quoted? It shows you are wrong. I ask one more time, what is your deal? Are you a having a laugh? Are you that drunk all the time?

I provided that there is no collusion demonstrable nor is it clear regarding the hacking.

But nobody has said collusion is demonstrable, it's under investigation with no conclusion yet. And all you showed about the hacking is the evidence is not declassified, which nobody has said otherwise. You are having delusional arguments with your imagination, trying to shift goalposts.

And you forgot to mention all the stuff you posted about impeachment. It shows, as many of us have told you, that impeachment proceedings are run however congress decides. It doesn't require court procedures. You are wrong. Admit it for once. Show some ethics. Or are you just a propaganda hack?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, the Podesta emails were released by Wikileaks. Roger Stone Tweeted something that indicated he knew it would be forthcoming. It is all in the wild.

Since both parties are just giving alternative versions at this time, the CNN article simply confuses, not clarifies.

See:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/kfile-roger-stone-wikileaks-claims/

I gave you the Tweet and a date. Roger Stone made a particularly specific statement in late August. The leak of emails would come later, when Trump needed a lot of political cover. That you "can't" make heads or tales of it is disingenuous.

 

[funinspace]

I provided that there is no collusion demonstrable nor is it clear regarding the hacking.

But nobody has said collusion is demonstrable, it's under investigation with no conclusion yet. And all you showed about the hacking is the evidence is not declassified, which nobody has said otherwise. You are having delusional arguments with your imagination, trying to shift goalposts.

Probably and probably not...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I provided that there is no collusion demonstrable nor is it clear regarding the hacking.

But nobody has said collusion is demonstrable, it's under investigation with no conclusion yet. And all you showed about the hacking is the evidence is not declassified, which nobody has said otherwise. You are having delusional arguments with your imagination, trying to shift goalposts.

And you forgot to mention all the stuff you posted about impeachment. It shows, as many of us have told you, that impeachment proceedings are run however congress decides. It doesn't require court procedures. You are wrong. Admit it for once. Show some ethics. Or are you just a propaganda hack?

True the collusion is not demonstrable at this stage which I have also said. Hence agreed.
Hacking: This is something which has been going on for a considerable amount of years. Since this is concerning an unsecured server this created a field day for all kinds of Hacks. That is it. We can also argue that since this was happening for a number of years, the previous US governments should have been doing something about it (but it is possible it was).


I suggest you read the procedures used in particular the Supreme Court Case Nixon v. United States (1993) This was relating to WALTER Nixon, not Richard Nixon.

However if you can find a lawyer on the forum (there used to be a couple) he/she can give a perspective in that he may say my interpretation is correct or it is wrong. However this is really not the central issue as it relates to the methodology used.

It's not a court of course. It's a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice (in the case of the President).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's not a court of course. It's a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice (in the case of the President).

Uh huh. And there are no appeals, so however, the Senators vote is how they vote. So if the Republicans want to be rid of Trump, they can do so based on just the information we have available now.

 

[TSwizzle]

If Russia caused Trump to win and Clinton to lose does that mean Americans are easily led?

How is it that Russia somehow controlled the result of the recent Presidential election, through hacking or lies or something equally bad.
How were Americans fooled by that...are they just not able to distinguish truth from fiction?

It did seem there was a lot in the press trying to undermine Clinton's campaign. Was Russia behind all of it ? I doubt it, maybe some of it. But counter that against what Trump was up against. He was fighting (and still is) the full weight of the liberal establishment media but somehow, the incompetent buffoon still managed to be elected President. In these elections, I think an awful lot of people have made up their minds which way they are going to vote long before election day. I am skeptical as to how much influence any of the crap had in fooling enough people to make a difference. Clinton was struggling from the day she entered the race.

The Americans I know are independent thinkers , smart, and not easily duped, so I find it hard to understand how Russia was supposed to have some strange control over the country.

Some of them are but boy, you come across some dumb ignorant types too.