5 ms·

The press release seems to conflat cyber attacks (of which there were none) with election influence (I think interference would be another phrase for the same t

The press release seems to conflat cyber attacks (of which there were none) with election influence (I think interference would be another phrase for the same thing?). But those are different no? "Russia tried to get people to vote for candidate X" can be true even when "Russia tried to stop people voting by breaking machines" isn't.

gadders 1y ago
[flagged]
- Applejinx 1y ago
  Nonsense, he literally did that on TV and his current scrambling is to obscure that he is, not an Epstein client, but a collaborator.
  - gadders 1y ago
    If the Epstein files damage Trump, why didn't the Democrats release them?
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      I'm confused, why would they? Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President. Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke). Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President. Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
      - gadders 1y ago
        Serious question - have you been in a coma for the last 8 years or so?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        Can you give an example of a President publicly releasing criminal evidence against a rival candidate in order to influence a Presidential election? The closest I can think of is perhaps the Mueller report, but that happened under Trump and was ordered by Obama after the election specifically to avoid influencing it. Trump is the only modern President I can think of that has even publicly accused an election rival of a crime from the White House, but again, his disregard for norms of the office and laws such as the Hatch Act is abnormal.
        gadders 1y ago
        They never released the "evidence" before the election because everyone expected Hillary to win. It was done post-election to undermine his presidency. I think trying to prosecute Trump to keep him off the ballot was a worse disregard of norms.
    - Applejinx 1y ago
      Democrats are also in them, most likely Clinton. Trump, however, is not simply a client, so the whole thing is such an apocalyptic mess that NOBODY wants to deal with it. And so, nobody ever did. Also, it would be dangerous to pry into.
- naabb 1y ago
  So you believe a known liar but it's impossible for you to believe that trump has ties to russia? the guy who has invested in russian real estate? the guy who went to russia many many times before he even became president? it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia? The cult is strong it seems.
  - nobunaga 1y ago
    Its strongly retarded
  - gadders 1y ago
    Who is the known liar? And honestly if you think a one line joke in an interview is "Russian Collusion" you have your own cult issues to deal with.
  - marcusverus 1y ago
    Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking. > [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary... Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?

gadders 1y ago

[flagged]

Applejinx 1y ago
Nonsense, he literally did that on TV and his current scrambling is to obscure that he is, not an Epstein client, but a collaborator.
- gadders 1y ago
  If the Epstein files damage Trump, why didn't the Democrats release them?
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    I'm confused, why would they? Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President. Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke). Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President. Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
    - gadders 1y ago
      Serious question - have you been in a coma for the last 8 years or so?
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        Can you give an example of a President publicly releasing criminal evidence against a rival candidate in order to influence a Presidential election? The closest I can think of is perhaps the Mueller report, but that happened under Trump and was ordered by Obama after the election specifically to avoid influencing it. Trump is the only modern President I can think of that has even publicly accused an election rival of a crime from the White House, but again, his disregard for norms of the office and laws such as the Hatch Act is abnormal.
        gadders 1y ago
        They never released the "evidence" before the election because everyone expected Hillary to win. It was done post-election to undermine his presidency. I think trying to prosecute Trump to keep him off the ballot was a worse disregard of norms.
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    Democrats are also in them, most likely Clinton. Trump, however, is not simply a client, so the whole thing is such an apocalyptic mess that NOBODY wants to deal with it. And so, nobody ever did. Also, it would be dangerous to pry into.
naabb 1y ago
So you believe a known liar but it's impossible for you to believe that trump has ties to russia? the guy who has invested in russian real estate? the guy who went to russia many many times before he even became president? it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia? The cult is strong it seems.
- nobunaga 1y ago
  Its strongly retarded
- gadders 1y ago
  Who is the known liar? And honestly if you think a one line joke in an interview is "Russian Collusion" you have your own cult issues to deal with.
- marcusverus 1y ago
  Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking. > [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary... Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?