But both efforts were intended to influence the election, right? And one is illegal and one is not, right?
Yep (if the ads in question fell under that law). Feel free to prosecute the Russians for breaking the law.
Are you generally in favor of foreign countries getting involved in our elections? Like when Senator Fred Thompson had a hearing with Tibetan monks who contributed to Bill Clinton’s campaign, did you ridicule Thompson for how little money they donated in relation to overall campaign spending?
Fred Thompson’s hearing was a grandstanding nothingburger. Cheap political point-making. Yes, foreign countries are involved in our elections. Russia is. France is. England is. Mexico is. China is. And have been, in election cycle after election cycle. That’s news? When Enrique Nieto met with Trump - was that “getting involved in our elections”? Yes. When Hollande explicitly endorsed Hillary Clinton and attacked Trump - was that “getting involved in our elections”? Yes. Etc. etc. So go try prosecuting Hollande. Or Nieto. Or Putin.
If we can’t actually prosecute anyone for this shit, can we at least find out who, what, and where? Most likely, we can get the “Why?” on our own.
I was responding to specific points that Ascenray and I were discussing.
I said nothing about them being required for collusion or treason. Not sure why you’re bringing that up. Do you regularly read things people write, take them out of context, and then complain that they don’t prove things they weren’t intended to prove?
To summarize the discussion in order to aid in your comprehension:
[ul]
[li]Ascenray - The topics Russia talked about is evidence (not proof!) of collusion[/li][li]Me - No, I don’t think so. Russia would have chosen those same topics independently.[/li][li]You - So what? Where are you going with that? That doesn’t disprove treason![/li][li]Me - Um… ok?[/li][/ul]
… and another “Russians hacked the elections” story collapses.
At what point will the “cry wolf” stories start to be ignored?
It’s kind of you to conflate me with another poster on the board whose posts appear to be thoughtful and reasonable, but I’m not sure he’d appreciate being mistaken for me.
He would probably appreciate your spelling his nickname correctly, however: Acsenray.
So when Trump says that Obama tapped his phones shortly before the election, and Trumpists says his tweet was close enough despite being wrong on all counts; why do you not afford the media the same “eh close enough?” attitude?
The news story mentioned 21 states and cyber attacks. There are indeed 21 states (more even!), and there are cyber attacks that happen. Why isn’t that good enough for you?
Glen Greenwald has his moments. Regrettably, they are moments. Or were.
Not too sure two Commissioners huffing “Not on MY watch, they didn’t!” refutes all that much, imho.
I’m anxiously awaiting his upcoming 3,500 word opinion piece for the Intercept that is nothing but the words “James Clapper – fuck you!!” repeated 875 times.
His comment section now looks indistinguishable from Breitbart’s (or what I imagine it to be, never having had the cast-iron stomach or prophylactic level of intoxication to actually look), so he’s got that to be proud of.
WADR (& I mean this seriously - I think you’re a genuinely funny guy) you gotta stop reusing this line. It was funny the first time, maybe the second. But this …
Oops, sorry.
There’s something funny about that link.
I stole that line from me? Mostly its Wodehouse borrow, Vonnegut steal and Twain plunder. Now that I know, I kinda wish I didn’t. So thanks. I guess.
Worked when I first put it in.
It was a link to elucidator and the word “moments”, and captured that same line being used over and over and over and over and over …
I know I’ve seen it more than enough times myself, but even I was surprised at how often it’s been used. The thing is, that he can do better.
Links to SDMB searches only last for a moment. Regrettably, just a moment.