EPTRussian interference is pretty much guaranteed, but Seth Rich could have also independently been plotting against the DNC on his own. I don't see why one cancels out the other.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7592
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Russian interference is pretty much guaranteed, but Seth Rich could have also independently been plotting against the DNC on his own. I don't see why one cancels out the other. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
but the entirety of Set Rice is that the detective got the information from Fox news then was used as a source. yes the police should look into it but there's not really anything fishy about it. People get murdered, it happens. unless you're say working for the mob you probably weren't killed to be silenced I mean the police are looking at it so if there's any actual evidence they'll investigate it (and it seems the answer to that is there isn't any.) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 20 2017 06:34 biology]major wrote: Also Julian Assange implied that Seth Rich was one of his sources. That alone should be reason enough to get the feds involved. I'm baffled that they aren't looking into this. Russian interference is pretty much guaranteed, but Seth Rich could have also independently been plotting against the DNC on his own. I don't see why one cancels out the other. Julian Assange: Seth is a source. FBI Agent 1: Someone check that? FBI Agent 2: Not seeing it in any of the information we have. FBI Agent 1: Ok, so we shouldn't dive into this then. FBI Agent 2: Should we respond? FBI Communications: Fuck no, then Assange will just say more stupid shit. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 20 2017 06:38 Plansix wrote: Julian Assange: Seth is a source. FBI Agent 1: Someone check that? FBI Agent 2: Not seeing it in any of the information we have. FBI Agent 1: Ok, so we shouldn't dive into this then. FBI Agent 2: Should we respond? FBI Communications: Fuck no, then Assange will just say more stupid shit. given the context and nature of his death, yeah that makes perfect sense to me. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On May 20 2017 05:41 zlefin wrote: just trying to be clear on your stance (i'm bad at using bold so i'm copy/pasting relevant parts instead): you stated "If I'm not mistaken the suggestion that the CIA/FBI think it was Russia feeding info to Wikileaks (presumably the DNC leaks) is an anonymous rumor?" so if I'm reading that correctly, and restate what you said in my own words: cia/fbi haven't asserted that wikileaks got the hacked info from russia. is that correct on your position? what is your position on whether russia hacked the dnc? (regardless of what they did with the info) I was remembering the same article p6 posted which credited an anonymous source that claimed the wikileaks emails came from Russian hackers. I don't think we have evidence that Russia gave the information they hacked (yes I think they and possibly others hacked the DNC and others) to wikileaks and those were the emails they released and said they got from a leaker, so people shouldn't speak about it as if it's a fact. That's my position. Particularly people who had a much more strict need for concrete proof during the primary. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On May 20 2017 07:26 Nevuk wrote: CNN is claiming white house lawyers are researching impeachment for the "distant possibility" that they need to defend Trump from it. Is that important news at all? I'd say not at this time. generally if there's even a distinct possibility of something you research it. I'd rate this as a literal 0 (aka standard as a result of whats been happening, means nothing on it's own.) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 20 2017 07:30 Plansix wrote: If they are in fact doing that, then yes. That is the opposite of normal for any White House. It isn't banner headlines, but this is CNN. Everything is Breaking News. I have to assume they would defend against hearing and witnesses being called. The impeachment itself is pretty much out of the hands of the White House by design. There's no majority (66%?) to vote an impeachment anyway, right? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 20 2017 07:32 TheDwf wrote: There's no majority (66%?) to vote an impeachment anyway, right? Majority in the house to start. 2/3s of the senate to remove after the hearings in the senate. House appoints over managers. It's a trail. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 20 2017 07:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: It also kind of depends on the White House lawyers in question. If they're the legal equivalent of Trump's little security team, they're probably nearly as far out of their depth here as Trump is, so research would be pretty necessary. it'd also depend on whether it's some sort of high level or senior counsel; or just some guy at the bottom of the totem pole looking at stuff. at any rate; I agree it largely means nothing. researching for things that might possibly happen is routine procedure. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 20 2017 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I was remembering the same article p6 posted which credited an anonymous source that claimed the wikileaks emails came from Russian hackers. I don't think we have evidence that Russia gave the information they hacked (yes I think they and possibly others hacked the DNC and others) to wikileaks and those were the emails they released and said they got from a leaker, so people shouldn't speak about it as if it's a fact. That's my position. Particularly people who had a much more strict need for concrete proof during the primary. ok; i'm fine with that. i'm sticking with it as a likelihood of course. (and may change it back to fact depending on citations others provide of course) | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 20 2017 08:06 biology]major wrote: Comey testimony, that's gonna be one for the history books. Trump is going to be sweating bullets during that one Trump gonna be in full REEEEEEE mode, tweeting election maps over and over during the stream | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 20 2017 06:34 biology]major wrote: Also Julian Assange implied that Seth Rich was one of his sources. That alone should be reason enough to get the feds involved. I'm baffled that they aren't looking into this. Russian interference is pretty much guaranteed, but Seth Rich could have also independently been plotting against the DNC on his own. I don't see why one cancels out the other. I mean if we are just throwing out random conspiracies then how about the Russians killed him to pin the hacks onto him in order to get the heat off of Russia and Trump. That crackpot theory I proposed actually makes more sense then any of the craziness people have said about it due to Russia being a country that actively assassinates opponents even on foreign soil. However saying that I am pretty sure my made up theory and every made up theory are wrong because its generally the most boring answer that is the correct one. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
