[RD] How does one go about determining who and what to believe?

Hiring a private operative and paying him to conduct oppo research is quite different from meeting with operatives of a foreign government for the purpose of discussing illegally hacked emails. There is nothing partisan about pointing out the obvious factual differences between the two.

One involves criminality. The other does not. Ignorant people trying to make the facts a partisan issue shouldn't dissuade you from discussing the facts.
 
Hiring a private operative and paying him to conduct oppo research is quite different from meeting with operatives of a foreign government for the purpose of discussing illegally hacked emails. There is nothing partisan about pointing out the obvious factual differences between the two.

One involves criminality. The other does not. Ignorant people trying to make the facts a partisan issue shouldn't dissuade you from discussing the facts.
What is the difference that make one a crime and not the other? Is it that there is a private operative inbetween (who was a former intelligence operative for a foreign power)? Is it the nature of the oppo research, in that one involved hacking emails?
 
What is the difference that make one a crime and not the other? Is it that there is a private operative inbetween (who was a former intelligence operative for a foreign power)? Is it the nature of the oppo research, in that one involved hacking emails?

It's that one involved hacking emails. That was a crime. The Trump people knew of the crime and not only didn't report it, they took a meeting to attempt to benefit from it. And eventually, they did benefit from it.
 
You said you were going by facts, but then offered a conclusion when you couldn't possibly know the facts which would support your conclusion. Which means you weren't actually going by the facts at all.

What conclusion?

I'd say that coordinating the release of hacked materials falls under the broad umbrella of participating in hacking. The hacking itself is likely going to be what attaches criminal liability to the Trump people for their behavior, even if they didn't directly participate in it. We already know that Trump's top campaign people met with Russians to discuss the hacked materials.

Then the NYT participated in the theft of the Pentagon Papers.

The main question isn't about participating in the hacking. The coordinating between a USian political campaign and the foreign agents in possession of stolen material is what is questionable. There's no way that they didn't know the material was stolen, and no way they didn't know they were dealing with foreign nationals, so once all the connecting lines are completed more indictments and convictions appear to be very likely. The only thing that can save the people who were directly involved is if they manage to get the investigation stopped before all the connections are demonstrated well enough to meet a legal standard. I'd guess they are running out of time, but that's just a guess.

I was responding to MH's question, the coordination is another matter and apparently not illegal. The NYT knew the Pentagon Papers were stolen, that doesn't negate their right to publish them. Hillary's campaign 'coordinated' with Russians too via the Steele dossier. Now if thats illegal, prosecute both campaigns. LOCK THEM UP! :)

Let me give it a try, since I'm unconcerned about being accused of being partisan. Steele went to Russian sources for information about what Trump did in Russia. Trump went to Russian sources to get what they had stolen in America. It's actually a pretty simple and distinct difference.

Hillary's campaign paid Russians for that dirt, Trump didn't pay for the DNC emails. Your difference is irrelevant, publishing information is protected speech regardless of where it came from, the Pentagon Papers were stolen in America.

<citation needed>

<citation needed>

Both campaigns sought dirt on their opponents and so have many campaigns in past elections, thats to be expected. Why do you need a citation for that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

Her campaign attorney hired Fusion GPS, who hired Steele, who had many sources in Russia.

The two situations (Clinton, Trump) are indeed different circumstances, so I don't think "but they did the same thing" necessarily applies, but I'm not sure I could state those differences without being accused of being partisan. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Hillary's campaign instructed the snooping and paid for it... The differences between the two cases are small and without legal distinctions from what I can see. But if one is illegal I'd say the Steele Dossier qualifies if her campaign paid for the theft of material within Russia, that would be like the NYT ordering the theft of the Pentagon Papers. Course it may not be illegal for an American presidential candidate to order the theft of foreign information about their opponent.
 
Whoa. I must have been oblivious to this. I have never before heard of a theft of material from Russia. What was stolen? From whom? How was the break-in accomplished?
The Truth is out there. In Her emails.....
 
The differences between the two cases are small and without legal distinctions from what I can see.

Other than the fact that one case involves crimes (Trump), and the other case does not involve crimes (Clinton), yes there is no legal distinction between the two.
 
Whoa. I must have been oblivious to this. I have never before heard of a theft of material from Russia. What was stolen? From whom? How was the break-in accomplished?

"if her campaign paid for the theft of material within Russia"

Hiring a private operative and paying him to conduct oppo research is quite different from meeting with operatives of a foreign government for the purpose of discussing illegally hacked emails. There is nothing partisan about pointing out the obvious factual differences between the two.

One involves criminality. The other does not. Ignorant people trying to make the facts a partisan issue shouldn't dissuade you from discussing the facts.

Her private operative was paid to meet with foreign operatives to obtain materials that may have been stolen, the people making this a partisan issue want the other side punished. If Russia stole the Pentagon Papers is it a crime for the NYT to discuss their publication? Is wikileaks facing US prosecution?

Other than the fact that one case involves crimes (Trump), and the other case does not involve crimes (Clinton), yes there is no legal distinction between the two.

Trying to get information published is not a crime

The Truth is out there. In Her emails.....

The truth was out there, the DNC emails showed her campaign rigged the election against Sanders.
 
I was responding to MH's question, the coordination is another matter and apparently not illegal. The NYT knew the Pentagon Papers were stolen, that doesn't negate their right to publish them.

My memory is slipping. What office was the New York Times running for when they published the Pentagon Papers again?
 
Is wikileaks facing US prosecution?
Yeah, that is the reason Julian Assange is holed up in the Equatorial embassy, because he is afraid of being deported to the US.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

Her campaign attorney hired Fusion GPS, who hired Steele, who had many sources in Russia.

The two situations (Clinton, Trump) are indeed different circumstances, so I don't think "but they did the same thing" necessarily applies, but I'm not sure I could state those differences without being accused of being partisan. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Let me give it a try, since I'm unconcerned about being accused of being partisan. Steele went to Russian sources for information about what Trump did in Russia. Trump went to Russian sources to get what they had stolen in America. It's actually a pretty simple and distinct difference.
A couple posts, among others, whose existence Berzerker has failed to acknowledge.
 
Her private operative was paid to meet with foreign operatives to obtain materials that may have been stolen,

No he didn't. There were no hacked emails obtained by Christopher Steele, there are no allegations that he committed any crimes, and there are certainly no allegations that he committed crimes that the Clinton campaign knew about. That is just not factually accurate. Now you're just making up a scenario and trying to pass it off as real.

The highest members of the Trump campaign met with foreign operatives to discuss hacked emails. Those emails were later used to assist the Trump campaign. That's not on it's own enough to prove a conspiracy in a court of law, but it certainly makes the Trump campaign a party to the crime, if for no other reason than they knew about it, didn't report it, and then later benefitted from it. How convenient.
 
No he didn't. There were no hacked emails obtained by Christopher Steele, there are no allegations that he committed any crimes, and there are certainly no allegations that he committed crimes that the Clinton campaign knew about. That is just not factually accurate. Now you're just making up a scenario and trying to pass it off as real.

The highest members of the Trump campaign met with foreign operatives to discuss hacked emails. Those emails were later used to assist the Trump campaign. That's not on it's own enough to prove a conspiracy in a court of law, but it certainly makes the Trump campaign a party to the crime, if for no other reason than they knew about it, didn't report it, and then later benefitted from it. How convenient.

Well, to slightly account for @Berzerker being so misinformed, there are allegations that Steele committed crimes. Check any right wing echo chamber yellow sheet and those alternative facts can certainly be found, right next to the allegations against Clinton, Obama, Comey, Biden, every Democrat who has ever served in congress, most media outlets and individuals (except those on Faux News), etc etc etc. So Berzerker isn't personally making them up, he is just totally non-discriminatory in the BS that he allows into his head and then dumps back out onto us.
 
Yeah, that is the reason Julian Assange is holed up in the Equatorial embassy, because he is afraid of being deported to the US.

Wasn't that for a rape charge he's facing in Sweden?

A couple posts, among others, whose existence Berzerker has failed to acknowledge.

I quoted both and responded to them, please acknowledge post #24

No he didn't. There were no hacked emails obtained by Christopher Steele, there are no allegations that he committed any crimes, and there are certainly no allegations that he committed crimes that the Clinton campaign knew about. That is just not factually accurate. Now you're just making up a scenario and trying to pass it off as real.

Thats not true, I said:

"Her private operative was paid to meet with foreign operatives to obtain materials that may have been stolen"

May have been stolen... And neither of us know for a fact the dossier did or didn't contain information that was stolen. As for what the Clinton campaign knew, wouldn't they at least understand the spy they sent to Russia to dig up dirt on Trump might have to steal or buy unauthorized materials? Its possible, right? How do you know where the dirt came from? Do you think she told Steele to reject anything that was or might have been stolen?

Well, to slightly account for @Berzerker being so misinformed, there are allegations that Steele committed crimes. Check any right wing echo chamber yellow sheet and those alternative facts can certainly be found, right next to the allegations against Clinton, Obama, Comey, Biden, every Democrat who has ever served in congress, most media outlets and individuals (except those on Faux News), etc etc etc. So Berzerker isn't personally making them up, he is just totally non-discriminatory in the BS that he allows into his head and then dumps back out onto us.

I didn't get anything from right wing echo chambers, its just common sense. If a former spy is paid to visit Russia to find dirt on Trump, they wont limit their inquiry to legal sources of information. You wont find them spending all their time in the library scanning newspaper articles. This guy had Russian connections and its possible someone in the chain transmitted information that was illegally obtained.

My memory is slipping. What office was the New York Times running for when they published the Pentagon Papers again?

The 1st Amendment doesn't protect just the NYT
 
The 1st Amendment doesn't protect just the NYT

My bad. Where can I buy a copy of the Donald Trump Gazette? You know, the one protected by freedom of the press.

By the way, you really should dig into those right wing echo chambers. It would save you whatever effort you are putting into coming up with their talking points "all by yourself."
 
Its called the National Enquirer

It took me seconds to figure out a former spy sent to Russia to dig up dirt on Trump might obtain information illegally, but the freedom of speech and the freedom to publish information belongs to us all.
 
May have been stolen... And neither of us know for a fact the dossier did or didn't contain information that was stolen. As for what the Clinton campaign knew, wouldn't they at least understand the spy they sent to Russia to dig up dirt on Trump might have to steal or buy unauthorized materials? Its possible, right? How do you know where the dirt came from? Do you think she told Steele to reject anything that was or might have been stolen?

No, and this is stupid. You can't base criminal liability on some theoretical thing which might have happened. The fact that you are making this absurd argument shows how different the two cases are. This doesn't even make sense.
 
Wasn't that for a rape charge he's facing in Sweden?
That has now been dropped. He has always maintained that the reason he did not submit himself for questioning was that he was concerned that he would be deported to the US. He was never questioned while in the embassy, so it appears they were never that keen to talk to him, just to get him under their control.
 
At first I was only looking at the 'contact with foreign powers to dig up dirt on political opponent', and in that case the differences between Clinton and Trump is tricky, but it's easy to forget hacking emails is theft, as I see I'm not the only one who forgot that aspect. Everyone knows hacking banking information is theft, but people like me need to be reminded that hacking any communication is theft (looking at you, TMZ).
 
Back
Top Bottom