I agree, but it's different if you're the boss, and it's your own organization investigating itself. In that case, you should be on the side of the investigators. Nobody has implicated Trump personally, and there's no indication anywhere that these investigations are politically motivated. It's not Benghazi! It's not Whitewater.
If he's a private citizen, by all means, clam up. If he's president, and he he is, cooperate or resign.
I'm guessing the NSA is better because they have more money. I'm assuming the level of cleverness is about equal on both sides, although more money equals more clever people. There's an implicit attitude that the Russians are just better at this game than us, but I doubt that's the case. Taken in total, the various news stories suggest that we're better.
Remember that even though Oceania hadn't always been at war with Eurasia, they were at war with Eurasia.
The Ecuadorians shut down Assange's internet because they were convinced that the Russians were using their embassy as a conduit to affect U.S. elections. I'm sure they know more about it than either you or me.
And why should anyone 'cooperate' with a witch-hunt? If the full force of the Federal government came after you for what you knew were totally made up charges would you 'fully cooperate' with such an investigation?
Am I president? Definitely. It worked for Clinton. They eventually got him on the one thing he tried to cover up: a blow job.
"O, I get it, by 'cooperate' you mean "admit guilt for something he didn't do", as I'm sure that's the only thing you'd accept as being 'cooperation'."
He's the president of the United States. If he wants to fight an investigation by his own justice department into other government officials, he should resign first. If he did nothing wrong, then cooperating does not mean admitting guilt.
There was no proof of intent. Gowdy only says that there is some circumstantial evidence is given for intent. Circumstantial evidence *can* prove a point, but only if it's overwhelming.
Other circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the emails labeled as classified were labelled in such a way that they could easily be missed, the fact that the amount of classified material was very small and inconsequential, the fact that much of it was under the purview of the Secretary of State, the fact that the deleted emails were recovered and were not in anyway incriminating are evidence for lack of intent.
Gowdy knows this of course, knows Comey is right, but is a scumbag who has no problem holding up his end of the Benghazi! witch hunt.
The problem is really the plan. Trump undoubtedly doesn't have one yet. If he ever gets around to it, it will be a horrible give away that threatens key pillars of ATC.
It's kind of like the Iraq war. Was getting rid of Saddam a bad idea? Not too bad. Does that mean we should let Dick Cheney do it? Hell no. The dudes a moron and also doesn't give a shit.
"Collusion" means cooperation in order to commit a crime.
Trump's team tried to hide their interactions from U.S. intelligence, but not from Russian intelligence. Trump is in cover up mode. This is not consistent with normal communication between candidates and a foreign government.
"You learned that the "Red Scare" was false in history class and you get stuck on 'labels' thinking you're being smart not falling for a blanket definition for a nebulous enemy presence."
No I didn't. You should go to school instead of just reading about what happens there. Both the communists and the red scare were great. They instilled into the American rich a healthy fear of the working class, which lead to generous concessions.
Your basic error is this: in the US, we allow nebulous enemy presences, because it's a free country. You don't like it, you can leave.
Weapons are now too powerful to allow ultra nationalists to have their way. Ever give any thought to what will happen when Putin dies? He can' t safely appoint a successor.
Slashdot Mirror
"Hate Crime" is not a broken concept. Motive is always considered when prosecuting a crime.
I can do the same thing and decompress 256 video files, so you're probably safe.
What if two phishing emails were sent to help the *same* candidate?
The other candidate cannot win twice, therefore your plan is a failure.
Good god that sounds dangerous.
Probably because he also represents the nation.
Yes, Trump and Okian are not on the side of Federal judges.
He clearly hasn't.
I agree, but it's different if you're the boss, and it's your own organization investigating itself. In that case, you should be on the side of the investigators. Nobody has implicated Trump personally, and there's no indication anywhere that these investigations are politically motivated. It's not Benghazi! It's not Whitewater.
If he's a private citizen, by all means, clam up. If he's president, and he he is, cooperate or resign.
I'm guessing the NSA is better because they have more money. I'm assuming the level of cleverness is about equal on both sides, although more money equals more clever people. There's an implicit attitude that the Russians are just better at this game than us, but I doubt that's the case. Taken in total, the various news stories suggest that we're better.
Remember that even though Oceania hadn't always been at war with Eurasia, they were at war with Eurasia.
The Ecuadorians shut down Assange's internet because they were convinced that the Russians were using their embassy as a conduit to affect U.S. elections. I'm sure they know more about it than either you or me.
No. The decline in this fear coincides with the decline in the Soviet Union starting in the 1970s. It is almost non-existent today.
And why should anyone 'cooperate' with a witch-hunt? If the full force of the Federal government came after you for what you knew were totally made up charges would you 'fully cooperate' with such an investigation?
Am I president? Definitely. It worked for Clinton. They eventually got him on the one thing he tried to cover up: a blow job.
"O, I get it, by 'cooperate' you mean "admit guilt for something he didn't do", as I'm sure that's the only thing you'd accept as being 'cooperation'."
He's the president of the United States. If he wants to fight an investigation by his own justice department into other government officials, he should resign first. If he did nothing wrong, then cooperating does not mean admitting guilt.
To a certain segment, Putin is more American than Obama.
Did you see where Trump has taken credit for our erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia turning our important military ally Qatar? Where Centcom is located?
IIRC, the NSA asked them not to publish it. When intercept refused, the NSA asked for certain redactions, and the intercept granted some of them.
Can you explain why releasing info on election hacks might hurt the president? Do you believe his election was illegitimate?
There was no proof of intent. Gowdy only says that there is some circumstantial evidence is given for intent. Circumstantial evidence *can* prove a point, but only if it's overwhelming.
Other circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the emails labeled as classified were labelled in such a way that they could easily be missed, the fact that the amount of classified material was very small and inconsequential, the fact that much of it was under the purview of the Secretary of State, the fact that the deleted emails were recovered and were not in anyway incriminating are evidence for lack of intent.
Gowdy knows this of course, knows Comey is right, but is a scumbag who has no problem holding up his end of the Benghazi! witch hunt.
The problem is really the plan. Trump undoubtedly doesn't have one yet. If he ever gets around to it, it will be a horrible give away that threatens key pillars of ATC.
It's kind of like the Iraq war. Was getting rid of Saddam a bad idea? Not too bad. Does that mean we should let Dick Cheney do it? Hell no. The dudes a moron and also doesn't give a shit.
Thanks for telling us what the NSA knows. Now give us an insider's scoop on the other intelligence agencies.
"Collusion" means cooperation in order to commit a crime.
Trump's team tried to hide their interactions from U.S. intelligence, but not from Russian intelligence. Trump is in cover up mode. This is not consistent with normal communication between candidates and a foreign government.
What classified information?
State talking points? A news article about a satellite photo?
I see you don't know what "colluding" means.
Jesus. The terrorists would drop a bomb from a jet if they could. Where the hell do you people come from?
We can also demand the president reveal his financial entanglements with Russia and cooperate with the investigations.
Not just friendly toward authoritarian rulers, but actively supportive of their attacks on democracy and law.
"You learned that the "Red Scare" was false in history class and you get stuck on 'labels' thinking you're being smart not falling for a blanket definition for a nebulous enemy presence."
No I didn't. You should go to school instead of just reading about what happens there. Both the communists and the red scare were great. They instilled into the American rich a healthy fear of the working class, which lead to generous concessions.
Your basic error is this: in the US, we allow nebulous enemy presences, because it's a free country. You don't like it, you can leave.
Weapons are now too powerful to allow ultra nationalists to have their way. Ever give any thought to what will happen when Putin dies? He can' t safely appoint a successor.