4 ms·

It's true that they were already engaged in hacking attempts, but there was a definite new response "on or about" the date of the tweet: > For example, on or

by koube 8y ago

It's true that they were already engaged in hacking attempts, but there was a definite new response "on or about" the date of the tweet: > For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign. Emphasis added. I see your point that "on or about" is vague, but it seems like they just appended it to every date for legalese reasons. They would have the timestamps for most of the dates in the document, it's not like they're not sure when the phishing emails were sent. Plus, they're sure about the time, but not the date? How does that make sense? Regarding the connection not being spelled out in the document, it's not legally relevant so they didn't think to include it. Just because a tangentially related legal document doesn't find it relevant doesn't mean the request being made and accepted is impossible. What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request? I think most reasonable people would agree that the request was being made, but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it.

cgriswald 8y ago
> ... but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it. The exact point is that this is not a fact. This is the conclusion you are reaching based solely on a coincidence of time and excluding other factors, including the months long campaign already operating by the Russians. > What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request? It's just as likely the Russians thought it would be worthwhile, funny, disruptive, or otherwise desirable to include these targets because he said this, but that it was neither a request nor a fulfillment of that request. The timing of the event can be significant without it being a literal request. > Emphasis added. Yes, this is the first time they attacked those particular accounts, yet it is a long list of attacks made by this group. This isn't really saying anything at all except repeating that you consider the timing of it to be significant.
- koube 8y ago
  You seem to be arguing that the request was made, received, and fulfilled as a joke. I find this to be not a compelling difference.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    No. I am arguing that classifying this as a request is unsupported by the facts. A request requires intent, which is non-obvious without presupposing a link and which is more simply explained without categorizing his statement as a request.
    - koube 8y ago
      That seems to be a semantic difference then. The definition of request is usually just the act of asking[0][1], and I think most people would assume that intent is baked into an ask. This is not an ambiguous "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" situation, it's an explicit ask and I think the counter claim, that the ask had no intent behind it, has the burden of proof. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/request https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/request [1] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/request https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/request
      - cgriswald 8y ago
        If you're going to get that pedantic, then you have to admit saying, "I hope" is not, in fact, asking.
        koube 8y ago
        In 1170 a king once famously said "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" The priest in question was soon killed by four knights, and as a result, the knights were sent to the Crusades for 14 years, and the king had to confess his sins, strip his clothes above the waist except for his crown, and allow himself to be struck with rods by all of the Bishops and monks of the church of the dead priest[0]. This the most famous historical example of the concept that weasel words don't absolve you of responsibility. If everyone knows what you mean then you said it directly. James Comey later referenced the quote "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" when Trump told him "I hope you can see your way to letting Flynn go." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

by koube 8y ago

cgriswald 8y ago

> ... but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it. The exact point is that this is not a fact. This is the conclusion you are reaching based solely on a coincidence of time and excluding other factors, including the months long campaign already operating by the Russians. > What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request? It's just as likely the Russians thought it would be worthwhile, funny, disruptive, or otherwise desirable to include these targets because he said this, but that it was neither a request nor a fulfillment of that request. The timing of the event can be significant without it being a literal request. > Emphasis added. Yes, this is the first time they attacked those particular accounts, yet it is a long list of attacks made by this group. This isn't really saying anything at all except repeating that you consider the timing of it to be significant.

koube 8y ago
You seem to be arguing that the request was made, received, and fulfilled as a joke. I find this to be not a compelling difference.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  No. I am arguing that classifying this as a request is unsupported by the facts. A request requires intent, which is non-obvious without presupposing a link and which is more simply explained without categorizing his statement as a request.
  - koube 8y ago
    That seems to be a semantic difference then. The definition of request is usually just the act of asking[0][1], and I think most people would assume that intent is baked into an ask. This is not an ambiguous "who will rid me of this turbulent priest" situation, it's an explicit ask and I think the counter claim, that the ask had no intent behind it, has the burden of proof. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/request https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/request [1] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/request https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/request
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      If you're going to get that pedantic, then you have to admit saying, "I hope" is not, in fact, asking.
      - koube 8y ago
        In 1170 a king once famously said "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" The priest in question was soon killed by four knights, and as a result, the knights were sent to the Crusades for 14 years, and the king had to confess his sins, strip his clothes above the waist except for his crown, and allow himself to be struck with rods by all of the Bishops and monks of the church of the dead priest[0]. This the most famous historical example of the concept that weasel words don't absolve you of responsibility. If everyone knows what you mean then you said it directly. James Comey later referenced the quote "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" when Trump told him "I hope you can see your way to letting Flynn go." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy