Tamper Tantrum (Mueller Thread v. 17)

[waiguoren]

Salam is excellent in the first five minutes here. Shields and Woodruff appear to have never considered this angle.

 

[Joe]

Going after the real enemy. House Republicans were ready to impeach rosenstein today. Remember it was trump who chose him.

 

[Darkballs]

There are many more examples in the indictment. Also, Trump never called for Russia to "violate our election laws".

Is this your strict textualism at work? Trump called on Russia to find and release Clinton's emails. It would be a violation of campaign laws for them to do so, unless you want us to believe that Trump was only asking for Russia to release information that they had somehow uncovered through legal means. And this was after reports that the DNC and other servers had been hacked. To pretend that trump wasn't applauding this act in particular, is just dishonest.

 

[Joe]

 

[Fawlty]

The traitors are barely pretending not to be traitors now. This is beyond the pale.

 

[Joe]

Wikileaks, i love wikileaks

 

[MayhemMonkey]

 

[waiguoren]

I should have known you would ignore the main point of my post.

You wrote:

And then the first actual hacks on DNC/Clinton servers, began [July 27, 2016].

Which is clearly false, based on the new indictment. The indictment clearly states that the hacking began much earlier, in March.

Since you are known for failing to admit fault, I won't hold my breath.

Trump called on Russia to find and release Clinton's emails.

Right, Clinton's State Department e-mails from the period 2009 to 2013.

This has nothing to do with hack of the DNC/DCCC during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

It would be a violation of campaign laws for them to do so, unless you want us to believe that Trump was only asking for Russia to release information that they had somehow uncovered through legal means.

Which "campaign law" would be violated?

And this was after reports that the DNC and other servers had been hacked. To pretend that trump wasn't applauding this act in particular, is just dishonest.

"Applauding the hack" is not the term I would use since I feel it is inaccurate. I think Trump was thrilled at the fruits of the hack, which is understandable.

 

[waiguoren]

According to the indictment, the hacks began in March 2016. Trump's statement was on July 27, 2016.

 

[Joe]

this Is an Interesting thing Mueller says, for the first time.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

According to the indictment, the hacks began in March 2016. Trump's statement was on July 27, 2016.

theres multiple replies to you claiming this earlier on proving you wrong.... why would I believe you now?

 

[Joe]

According to the indictment, the hacks began in March 2016. Trump's statement was on July 27, 2016.

This is something else! These are direct attacks on Clinton personal office

 

[Darkballs]

Right, Clinton's State Department e-mails from the period 2009 to 2013.

This has nothing to do with hack of the DNC/DCCC during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

No shit. Trump did not praise the hack that hadn't already happened yet. What trump did do, was praise previous hacks, called on for additional hacks, which then happened.

Listen kid, I get where you're going with this. You want to pretend that trump requesting foreign interference, had nothing to do with the foreign interference that occurred that same day.

"Applauding the hack" is not the term I would use since I feel it is inaccurate.

Well he certainly wasn't against the idea, and begged for it to continue. I mean, what exactly is your position here? That when trump called on Russia to "release the emails," that he figured they had received them through legitimate means? How can you take his statement as anything other than and endorsement of russia's previous actions?

I think Trump was thrilled at the fruits of the hack, which is understandable.

Genuinely astounded that a member of the Federalist Society wouldn't see a problem with this. You don't think a candidate for President of the United States should show any concern for foreign entities attempting to interfere in our election process? You think it's fine to give that a pass, so long as it personally benefits the candidate?

 

[44nutman]

Never forget this (knowing?)accomplice, his Russian talking points and what channel he pushed them on

Cohen's 3rd client is a fucking traitor.

 

[waiguoren]

theres multiple replies to you claiming this earlier on proving you wrong.... why would I believe you now?

Point me to the post which "proves me wrong". If you actually read the new indictment, you will see the truth.

 

[44nutman]

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Point me to the post which "proves me wrong". If you actually read the new indictment, you will see the truth.

this one

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-same-day-trump-asked-russia-to-hack-her.html



Try again

Some context: According to the indictment, Russian operatives had already hacked and attempted to hack the Democratic National Committee and other Clinton-related targets before July. (The indictment says the hacking started in March.) What’s being alleged (with seemingly intentional specificity) is that the Russians didn’t target Clinton’s “personal office” until the day that Trump asked them to

 

[Joe]

Meanwhile

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Meanwhile

Jesus christ his shilling knows no bounds

 

[ShadowRun]

And then the first actual hacks on DNC/Clinton's personal servers, began that day. You think a poster like yourself so concerned with honesty would mention that.

Do you not think when Russia heard then candidate Trump encourage them to violate our election laws, they were in fact emboldened to do so?

How do you know ? Who I investigated the evidence to determine it was from Russia . Only a private company i believe