I apparently read it a good bit better than you.
“according to U.S. officials” “according to U.S. officials who have seen the message” “according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters”
If you don’t understand that that’s the very definition of an “unnamed source”, I can’t help you.
This struck me as somewhat hinky. OK, the Russians try to help Trump win. Why then would they also seek to “undermine confidence” in elections? Why would they want to sow doubt on his election?
Multiple officials, not one source.
And not a single one of them named.
If its bogus, then the FBI will release something quite soon. Right now, the Prez is giving his swan song press conference, so they most likely won’t interrupt that. Shortly thereafter, you can scoot down here and do some nose-rubbing.
And if they don’t, then the story is most likely not bogus, if not necessarily complete. We can talk more about it then.
To be fair to HurricanDitka, that quote is according to an unnamed source. Here’s the WP article cited.
Bolding mine.
I’m from your side of the fence, but I hate this unsourced shit, too. I know sometimes that’s the only way you can do it, but I don’t like it.
What’s the Comey quote there? Oh, what’s that? there isn’t one? That’s because he’s not the source of this information. He’s not a “source”, named or unnamed.
The Washington Post tried to spin the alleged CIA memo, and rawstory.com tried to spin it even further.
Its been known for some time that the FBI accepted the probability of Russian involvement, but held to the line that the purpose was to disrupt confidence in our elections. They initially shied away from any notion of purpose, as in electing Trump.
They may not have had that much time to investigate, what with assuring America that Anthony Weiner’s dick pics did not violate national security.
Nowhere.
The Nixon Watergate impeachment movement arose after the revelation that the President sought to use the power of his office to cover up crimes committed either at his command or at the command of his senior staff.
“Communication” between Trump and Russia proves nothing criminal.
If you could prove that there was communication between Trump and Russia that satisfied the elements of conspiracy, then presumably Trump could be indicted for violations as a conspirator of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 eq seq.
But as a quick primer on elements of criminal conspiracy, it cannot be satisfied by a public statement of, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” made on Wednesday, July 27th . . . if for no other reason that the evidence shows that the hacking in question was completed well prior to that statement.
Do you understand why this is?
What legal significance do you attach to this observation?
If any?
Do you believe that the DNC server and the Clinton private e-mail server are the same thing?
Do you believe that the Clinton private server was also hacked?
Party before country.
That’s sure catching on around here. Is it the retort we can expect for the next 4/8 years in place of reasoned arguments?
So Donald conned a veteran KGB spook into trusting him? Now, that is a closer!
I think, Counselor, that very few of us are thinking in terms of a criminal indictment, much less conviction. You don’t have to convince us that we are wrong about thinking that, because we are not.
This is uncalled for. Bricker had not been a participant in this thread at that point and introducing him in this fashion is bordering on trolling, or jerkishness, or both.
[/moderating]
Sure, good suggestion thanks.
The OP:
Me:
Do you understand why even though it may not rise to the level of prosecutable crime, the very fact that a presidential candidate publically encouraged a foreign power to continue stealing information from his opponent’s campaign is REPUGNANT?
Trump is not your client, and you are not obligated to get him off on a technicality. There is a greater moral imperative at stake.
Oh, what the heck, Bricker, knock yourself out. Here, I’ll even ditto. I doubt very much that there is any value in seeking an indictment or a trial against Trump. First off, as I said, I doubt very much that he was “in on it”. When Lenin talked about useful idiots, he wasn’t talking about co-conspirators, indicted or otherwise. So, no.
All I dream of at this point is not having his grubby little mitts on the levers of power. I don’t need him to go to Club Fed.
Leaving aside whether Trump actually was complicit, it would seem pretty obvious that if he was complicit that he needs to be impeached. And if Pence was complicit then he should be impeached along with him. (IIRC that would make Paul Ryan president, but I could be wrong.)
This needs to be investigated, and I assume it will be. However, the one thing that could really sink it is Democrats jumping the gun and making it a partisan issue, thus provoking a counter-reaction by Republicans. In that case, they might circle the wagons.
Of course, this is all theoretical. Personally I highly doubt if Trump was complicit. Even if you assume that he would have been complicit if offered the chance, there’s nothing that the Russians needed him for, and no reason for them to involve him.