04 Apr 23
@techsouth saidYeah… exactly how law works…
Every banana republic that has engaged in political prosecutions have substantial numbers of gullible people who believe it's nothing but dispassionate enforcement of law.
People in Venezuela have had to resort to eating zoo animals for food, yet even today there are plenty of gullible people who trust that Hugo Chavez was doing the right thing to prosecute his opponents ...[text shortened]... the Internet exists, there citizens are assured that they have the most prosperous country on Earth.
Dumb nuts.
The prosecution had to weigh up the odds of proving something beyond some form of doubt.
So, even if they know someone is guilty of X, if they don’t think they can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, they drop it.
It’s not about cherry picking which law is good or bad.
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidIf republicans had the numbers he would have been impeached regardless whereas Trump used campaign funds ( an illegal act ) to shut up an accuser that might have turned the election in his opponents favour.
No, it was just prior to his impeachment. How do you like that timing?
"did he use election funding to pay her off."
We don't know. That is the problem. Where did the extra money come from?
Just like when Trump asked the FSB to release Hilary’s emails, and they did.
04 Apr 23
@kevcvs57 said"just like when Trump asked the FSB to release Hilary’s emails, and they did."
If republicans had the numbers he would have been impeached regardless whereas Trump used campaign funds ( an illegal act ) to shut up an accuser that might have turned the election in his opponents favour.
Just like when Trump asked the FSB to release Hilary’s emails, and they did.
What is your source of information?
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidReality you halfwit, he did it live on stage.
"just like when Trump asked the FSB to release Hilary’s emails, and they did."
What is your source of information?
He can be a traitor his cabal of right wing Republican supporters do not care as long as hates and stigmatises the segments of society that they want him to hate and stigmatise.
For all her faults Hilary was spot on when she called his base / the tea party “deplorable’s”
04 Apr 23
@kevcvs57 said" and they did."
Reality you halfwit, he did it live on stage.
He can be a traitor his cabal of right wing Republican supporters do not care as long as hates and stigmatises the segments of society that they want him to hate and stigmatise.
For all her faults Hilary was spot on when she called his base / the tea party “deplorable’s”
What is your source of information?
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidReality and not being a Kremlin bot
" and they did."
What is your source of information?
“ Russian spies began trying to hack Hillary Clinton’s personal email server on the very day Donald Trump urged the Russian government to find emails Clinton had erased, prosecutors said on Friday.
US indicts 12 Russians for hacking DNC emails during the 2016 election
An indictment filed by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, said Russian hackers attempted “for the first time” to break into email accounts used by Clinton’s personal office “after hours” on 27 July 2016.
That day, at an event in Florida, Trump invited the Russian state to search for the approximately 30,000 emails that Clinton was found to have deleted from her private server on the grounds that they were not related to government work.”
“ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hillary-clinton-email-server-trump-indictment?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
04 Apr 23
@AverageJoe1
So you all know exactly what Trump is to be charged with even before they reveal the charges? And whatever happened to Bill Clinton has nothing to do with what Trump did. Most likely Trump will be charged with several layers of fraud, and maybe even conspiracy because more than one person was involved AND Trump counted that money as a tax deduction campaign expense and he wrote ELEVEN separate checks signed by Trump going to Cohen AS A LEGAL EXPENSE.
Show me where Clinton or any other POTUS did THAT.
Oh, I forgot, you consider Trump above the law.
04 Apr 23
@kevcvs57 saidNo, that was before Trump asked Russia to find more.
Reality and not being a Kremlin bot
“ Russian spies began trying to hack Hillary Clinton’s personal email server on the very day Donald Trump urged the Russian government to find emails Clinton had erased, prosecutors said on Friday.
US indicts 12 Russians for hacking DNC emails during the 2016 election
An indictment filed by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, sa ...[text shortened]... om/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hillary-clinton-email-server-trump-indictment?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
You said Trump asked and Russia delivered on his request.
You have no proof of what you said. Trump asked, but Russia did not deliver. You are also bringing up another conspiracy theory. There is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC and I have proven that countless times on here as you well know.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidYou most certainly have "proved" no such thing and that article has been debunked by Crowdstrike, as I have shown you literally dozens of times. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
No, that was before Trump asked Russia to find more.
You said Trump asked and Russia delivered on his request.
You have no proof of what you said. Trump asked, but Russia did not deliver. You are also bringing up another conspiracy theory. There is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC and I have proven that countless times on here as you well know.
https://www.real ...[text shortened]... learpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html
You have deliberately lying by continuing to use it.
04 Apr 23
3 edits
@no1marauder saidNo. You are deliberately lying.
You most certainly have "proved" no such thing and that article has been debunked by Crowdstrike, as I have shown you literally dozens of times. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
You have deliberately lying by continuing to use it.
Your denial is based on the false assertion that circumstantial evidence is proof and it is not. STOP LYING!
Your own blog says this:
Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?
"Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32) and that data had clearly left the network."
"Indicators" is not evidence. Crowdstrike is contradicting itself in the very same paragraph by falsely saying yes. Futhermore, that contradicts Henry's statements:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
What part of "not evidence" and " we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left" do you not understand?????????
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidThis is a waste of time; I've shown you many times that circumstantial evidence is most certainly legal evidence.
No. You are deliberately lying.
Your denial is based on the false assertion that circumstantial evidence is proof and it is not. STOP LYING!
Your own blog says this:
Does CrowdStrike have evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC network?
"Yes. Shawn Henry stated in his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfi ...[text shortened]... ce" and " we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left" do you not understand?????????
You are either stupid or a liar to keep denying it.
04 Apr 23
@no1marauder saidYou are lying.
This is a waste of time; I've shown you many times that is most certainly legal evidence.
You are either stupid or a liar to keep denying it.
Circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. It is a mere indicator.
For example, if a killer left blood at the scene of the crime and it is the same blood type as me and it is type O. That is circumstantial evidence, not proof that I am the killer. You could never get a conviction on such a weak indicator.
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence. Besides Henry said "We just don’t have the evidence". End of your ridiculous denial. STOP YOUR BLOODY LYING!
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidHey Ivan
No, that was before Trump asked Russia to find more.
You said Trump asked and Russia delivered on his request.
You have no proof of what you said. Trump asked, but Russia did not deliver. You are also bringing up another conspiracy theory. There is no evidence Russia hacked the DNC and I have proven that countless times on here as you well know.
https://www.real ...[text shortened]... learpolitics.com/2020/05/13/crowdstrike_president_under_oath_no_proof_of_russia_dnc_hack_510974.html
Still not learned to read English then
“Russian hackers attempted “for the first time” to break into email accounts used by Clinton’s personal office “after hours” on 27 July 2016.
That day, at an event in Florida, Trump invited the Russian state to search for the approximately 30,000 emails that Clinton was found to have deleted from her private server on the grounds that they were not related to government work.”
Do you not understand what ‘after hours’ means. Trump requested that they hack Hilary’s emails during THAT day and later THAT night they did exactly as trump had requested. Trump is a Russian asset and they will do their very best to get him in the White House or failing that they will sow as much division as possible into the US body politic just as they do in Europe.
04 Apr 23
@kevcvs57
What part of "We just don’t have the evidence" do you not understand?
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html
04 Apr 23
@metal-brain saidWhat part of stop linking 💩 fake news conspiracy websites do you not understand, he did it live on the telly.
@kevcvs57
What part of "We just don’t have the evidence" do you not understand?
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html
Stop lying about 💩 that is not up for debate