Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
True, there is an ongoing investigation relating to Russia's efforts to interfere and any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts. 
You are correct, there is an ongoing investigation regarding the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia's efforts.
P.S.
Investigating any possible links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign who might have links to Russia and Russia's illegal efforts includes Trump himself. |
Yes, but your posts are misleading. This is not a criminal investigation into Donald J. Trump. This is an investigation into Russia and whether anyone in the campaign (yes, including Trump) broke any laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I don't remember hearing that Russia hacked "election results". In fact, it would be virtually impossible to do so. However, it does look as though the Russians illegally hacked into the servers belonging to Democrats, gained information, and used that information to politically damage Trump's political opponents - thereby swaying the electorate with information gained illegally.
|
The libs big whine was that the Russians hacked the election and Trump won because the Russians hacked the election.
This is hilarious, because both parties are in the thick of it. On one hand, you have Gowdy going on and on about how the leakers and reporters should get up to 10 years in federal prison for espionage. He was angry about the leakers and not the alleged content of the leak, which could be just as serious (if proven to be true).
On the other hand, you have libs more upset that the DNC was exposed by Wikileaks than they are that the DNC conducted a fraudulent primary and purposefully and intentionally swayed the primary so Hillary would win.
Hilarious!
What's worse, Aquila -- Wikileaks publishing an email showing Donna Brazille helping Clinton cheat in a debate or that Brazille actually did help Clinton cheat in a debate and just recently admitted to lying about it?
What's worse -- Wikileaks publishing an email from the DNC heads exposing their fraudulent actions, or that the DNC actually committed fraud in its primary?
Also, please tell me the difference here:
A) The Wikileaks obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.
B) The NYTimes obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.
The NYTimes itself printed this 12/13/16: "Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media.
Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."
So tell me again how bad Wikileaks was for publishing emails when "every major publication" and news network ran stories and headlines using the very same emails?