When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

You're right, some form of evidence is needed, but the evidence needed for probable cause isn't as conclusive as the evidence needed to formally charge someone of a crime. It's like if there were a murder, the authorities would be within their jurisdiction to investigate people when they have no evidence to formally charge anyone of any crimes. They would investigate for the purpose of attaining more evidence, and what they would likely do is investigate people who were near the area around the time of the murder, as well as people who were close to the victim

In the case of our troubles with Russia, the crime has already been committed, and that crime was when Russia meddled with our elections. Now the authorities are within their jurisdiction to gather more evidence and investigate individuals who were in contact with Russia during that time. As for formal contracts... the authorities are perfectly within their jurisdiction to investigate said contacts, provided that they are cleared to handle any classified material.

Just as the case was when Hillary Clinton's contacts/emails were investigated that contained classified material. Formal contacts are not considered to be private at all, and the federal government is within its jurisdiction to investigate said contacts without a warrant (although security clearances may be required). To say they cannot investigate formal contacts is profoundly inaccurate

and again, no one is being charged of any illegal activity, the investigation simply means we are taking the necessary course of action to gather more evidence.

In the case of Watergate, yes an actual crime was committed, but there was no evidence that anyone in the Nixon administration was involved until they investigated. Their was no trial of evidence until they gathered that evidence via investigations. In regards to our current troubles with Russia, an actual crime was committed, Russia meddled with our elections, and now just like Watergate, we have probable cause to investigate and gather more evidence. Make no mistake, Russia meddling with our election was a crime, and we do need to investigate further.

 

uhh.. no I wasn't saying that, you're putting words in my mouth. I repeatedly used the term "joint statement" and I never once suggested it was anything else. I specified multiple times that there was no joint investigation, but a joint statement that concluded that the Intelligence Community was confident that Russia meddled with our elections. You can spin it and say I said something that I did not, but I used the same source several days ago that I am using today. Heck, I even had a little exchange with AmericanNationalist in post #134 (last Sunday) where I addressed his criticisms of the joint statement as being valid, because he wasn't being unreasonable and trying to claim that the USIC wasn't a part of the statement, or that the USIC doesn't represent 17 agencies.

He was basically saying the statement was done in a way to make the other agencies nod in agreement, because they were not all significantly involved in the investigations. You see, he was being fair in his assessment, because he wasn't diverting from the facts. I already acknowledged then that the 17 agencies did not independently declare that Russia was the perpetrator. It was declared via joint statement.

 

Then we agree.

 

If your position is the same as what AmericanNationalist was expressing, then yes.. but you see, he wasn't denying the 17 agencies in the October statement, he was pretty much saying he does not give the statement the level of significance that they intended, because the Intelligence Community was lead to make that conclusion

 

I'll restate the argument that I made days ago since you apparently have no idea why we are having this conversation at this point: I've been disturbed at the constant use of the term, 17 Intelligence agencies, have either reported, concluded, whatever, when in fact 17 intelligence agencies have done no such thing. There were two joint messages, one from two agencies and one from three. So all "17 intelligence agencies" have not made any determination on Russia, and in fact couldn't. As I've asked and you've failed to answer, in what way could the NRO actually provide intelligence on supposed hacking?

YOU in particular used the term "17 intelligence agencies" in this thread, which is why we are having this discussion, so if finally you are getting that the use of "17 intelligence agencies" is misleading and inaccurate, well...finally!

 

Again though, we are not talking about the investigation. I addressed way back in post #67 that not all members of the Intelligence Community were involved in the investigation itself. What we're talking about here is the joint statement, which in its very first sentence addresses the Intelligence Community as coming to a conclusion on Russia's involvement in meddling with our elections

 

I have actual history. You only have 1/2 of actual history.
Until you get honest, there is no further discussion. And you don't seem the honest type.

Let's throw you a softball, what did Bush II do to stop the housing bubble?
When you can't answer that, then see if you're honest enough to show what Bush II did to fuel the housing bubble, and be in charge when the bubble went bust.

Another softball question, who pushed for the repeal of Glass-Stegal? Yes Clinton signed it, but there was a party, and a person who pushed it hard.
Hint, the person was a R.
Are you honest enough to even try?

 

You specifically used the term "17 intelligence agenices" multiple times. Do you concede that's innaccurate?

 

I said that referring to the joint statement, not the investigation. I made this perfectly clear back in post #67

 

Well it's true for both.

 

Well the joint statement most definitely includes the USIC, which is without question a collection 17 agencies.

What I want is facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon facts, nothing else will ever be of service to us. Stick to facts, sir

 

See, you're making progress.

 

I am delighted to he Dickens referenced!

 

Or to make tools out of the Democrats.

 

I know more than enough to know that you are wrong!

 

Extremist alt right disinformation again?

Mortgage lending by BANKS are REGULATED so as to minimize subprime loan risks!

The Republican/Libertarian Contract ON America DEREGULATION of Glass-Steagall ripped away the barrier between the Wall Street Casino and the Banks.

The Wall Street Casino Bosses funded their own PREDATORY LENDING banks and used those to make millions of UNREGULATED subprime mortgages.

They then bundled those toxic mortgages with regular mortgages and NEFARIOUSLY sold them off as asset backed securities KNOWING that they would implode. The Wall Street Casino Bosses even INSURED THEMSELVES against the built in crash of their own toxic mortgages.

This was the biggest Ponzi scam in the history of the world and not one of the Wall Street Casino Bosses has ever been held accountable because the GOP made it LEGAL for them to pull off this SCAM.

Denial on your part won't alter any of those FACTS!

 

So according to YOU private individuals are allowed to use foreign spy apparatus to circumvent the Law of the Land and subvert the duly elected government at that time?

 

Wishful thinking on your part.

Why did Senator Graham call it a CRIMINAL investigation after talking to the Deputy AG?

 

What do you mean; when?

It's obvious that it's a hoax. People are just playing along, just like the Flat-Earth people. They're pulling your chain. Just laugh and go about your life. That stupid stuff will fade to late-night talk radio; where it belongs.

The voters should not re-elect the tinfoil hat people but they will. They don't care about the country or the damage being done. The only thing they care about is how much free stuff they'll get. Trump appears to be threatening their free stuff, so he's got to go.

 

Contrary to what you have suggested, I didn't change my general description of the joint statement. From several days ago I distinguished that the joint statement from the Intelligence Community did not mean there was a joint investigation, and I can even refer you to those prior posts as proof. Once again, the statement from the Director of National Security describes a consensus from the United States Intelligence Community, which is made up of 17 different agencies. The consensus from the 17 agencies is based on the information attained by DHS. No, the 17 agencies themselves did not all take part in attaining that information, but there still exists a consensus from the Intelligence Community based on the information that DHS attained through their investigations. To deny the existence of said consensus is contrary to the facts, regardless of whether you agree with the manner in which the joint statement was made, the joint statement still took place.

 

The last thing that you showed me, that politifact article, made my point, not yours, so if you want to continue to show me things, go ahead. Otherwise, my point stands.

 

Of course I never said that. Presidential Candidates and their committees of Bush, Clinton and Obama all had contact with Russian as well as other foreign diplomats prior to their election. The wild eyed left just decided to create a narrative in this particular situation to excuse them from the fact America is sick and tired of it's elitist, socialist attitude and wanted change.

 

Name any of them that used a foreign nation's spy apparatus to subvert the Law of the Land!

 

Banks *sold* all these toxic mortgages as bundled securities! Therefore they flew under the regulations which would have prevented the collapse. And they *did* have to compete with Fannie so when Fannie eliminated income requirements and down payment requirements it forced the banks to do the same.

G-S had little to do with anything. The big banks didn't use client money to buy these mortgage securities. Client money was never at risk, only investor monies.

The Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs were *NEVER* in the business of actually issuing mortgages directly to consumers. They only purchased securities consisting of bundled mortgages.

The fact that you consider the big banks insuring themselves against loss as being somehow bad only shows your insane antipathy against the big banks. Insuring against losses is a GOOD THING! In fact, it was the inability of the insurance companies to pay off on the insurance policies that was the trigger for the large banks being in jeopardy at all. Insurance companies like AIG simply didn't have the cash reserves to handle a complete blowout of the housing market. Yet no one, including you, ever whines about the INSURANCE COMPANIES!

Think about it for a minute. If the big banks issued all these mortgages then who did they sell them to? Themselves? The pure insanity of believing such an inherently illogical scenario should trigger you to reconsider what you think you know about the whole thing!

As REagan said, it isn't how much the Democrats know that is the problem, it's how much they know that is wrong!

 

What law of the land? You have yet to even point to the statute in the US Code that makes collusion a crime!
Nor have you shown *any* actual subverting that was done. Wining an election is *NOT* subversion!