Post the Law or Regulation that...

[easyt65]

Syr, stick to speaking for yourself because you have repeatedly proven YOU SUCK at trying to speak for others.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If in 1939, the FBI released a report suggesting that Nazi Germany may have broken into the Republican Party headquarters in an attempt to influence the 1940 election, Sarge would be asking "where is the crime in that"?

In 1939 the Republicans had absolutely NO CHANCE if beating FDR so it would have been a wasted effort. As to this election there is no actual evidence the Russians did anything. And even if they did it is not illegal to pass dirt on politicians.

Yep- as I said- Sarge would be fine with Nazi's breaking into the Republican headquarters in 1939 to try to influence the election.

Just as he doesn't care whether the Russians tried to influence the elections in 2016.

You have provided zero evidence the Russians did any such thing. I notice you quit claiming they hacked the election.

 

[Moonglow]

Still waiting........ It is neither illegal or immoral to post or provide information against a political party or candidate by 3rd parties. There is no law preventing this from happening. The Russians can IN FACT provide information to a third party in the US and that party can release that information. But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton, in fact all the intel says that an OPEN SOURCE code once used by the Russians and now available to ANYONE with an internet connection was used to hack the DNC. And then the intel agencies REFUSED to provide Congress with information about the Intel claims they had proof the Russians hacked the DNC.

It is also information which can't be verified, so it falls under ethical dilemmas...

 

[easyt65]

The question is not is it illegal for a third party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate the question is how did they come by the information? Getting it through a FOI request or other legal means is one thing doing so by illegally hacking private e-mail is another we should all remember just because the Democrats got nailed by it this time does not mean it couldn't be the Republicans next time.

Happens in EVERY election and will continue to happen in the future.

So the Russian do this with all of our elections- and you are okay with Russians doing it again?

Same schtick / false narratives, different thread.

 

[Syriusly]

Post the law or Regulation that makes it illegal for a 3rd party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate please.

So you're okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our electoral process.

Check.

Unless we pass a law making it illegal..

So you are saying that you are okay with a hostile foreign power trying to interfere with our electoral process?

So if Iranians planted evidence that Donald Trump was a child pornographer- you would be okay with that- just so long as there was no law against planting evidence.

 

[g5000]

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter prohibits one country from fucking with the internal matters of another country that are within the jurisdiction of that country.

You're welcome.

 

[Syriusly]

The question is not is it illegal for a third party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate the question is how did they come by the information? Getting it through a FOI request or other legal means is one thing doing so by illegally hacking private e-mail is another we should all remember just because the Democrats got nailed by it this time does not mean it couldn't be the Republicans next time.

Happens in EVERY election and will continue to happen in the future.

So the Russian do this with all of our elections- and you are okay with Russians doing it again?

Same schtick / false narratives, different thread.

Same schtick / false narratives, different thread- that explains you and Sarge perfectly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting........ It is neither illegal or immoral to post or provide information against a political party or candidate by 3rd parties. There is no law preventing this from happening. The Russians can IN FACT provide information to a third party in the US and that party can release that information. But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton, in fact all the intel says that an OPEN SOURCE code once used by the Russians and now available to ANYONE with an internet connection was used to hack the DNC. And then the intel agencies REFUSED to provide Congress with information about the Intel claims they had proof the Russians hacked the DNC.

It is also information which can't be verified, so it falls under ethical dilemmas...

Sure it can if the people that control the emails want to claim it was false they can release the emails. Failure to do so proves the information is actually truthful.

 

[g5000]

A/RES/20/2131 - Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter prohibits one country from fucking with the internal matters of another country that are within the jurisdiction of that country.

You're welcome.

No one did any such thing. Assange insists the hack was an inside job and NO ONE has shown any evidence it was not.

 

[Moonglow]

Still waiting........ It is neither illegal or immoral to post or provide information against a political party or candidate by 3rd parties. There is no law preventing this from happening. The Russians can IN FACT provide information to a third party in the US and that party can release that information. But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton, in fact all the intel says that an OPEN SOURCE code once used by the Russians and now available to ANYONE with an internet connection was used to hack the DNC. And then the intel agencies REFUSED to provide Congress with information about the Intel claims they had proof the Russians hacked the DNC.

It is also information which can't be verified, so it falls under ethical dilemmas...

Sure it can if the people that control the emails want to claim it was false they can release the emails. Failure to do so proves the information is actually truthful.

Not necessarily.....It is upon the accuser to supplement evidence...

 

[g5000]

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter prohibits one country from fucking with the internal matters of another country that are within the jurisdiction of that country.

You're welcome.

No one did any such thing. Assange insists the hack was an inside job and NO ONE has shown any evidence it was not.

Ah. And here we see the denial at the root of your condoning a hostile foreign power's interference in our electoral process.

Check.

Hey, didja notice Assange didn't back up his claim with any evidence, Chump? Too bad for you there is evidence Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta's emails. You just work really hard at avoiding it, willfully blind monkey.

 

[Moonglow]

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter prohibits one country from fucking with the internal matters of another country that are within the jurisdiction of that country.

You're welcome.

No one did any such thing. Assange insists the hack was an inside job and NO ONE has shown any evidence it was not.

He has yet to prove that it was, which makes such information questionable of intent...

 

[easyt65]

Hey Syr, prove Sarge wrong - post that 'definitive evidence' you've got.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A/RES/20/2131 - Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

So you find fault with what Obama did in Britain, Israel, Libya , Egypt and Syria? We have absolute proof he intervened in those Countries elections or Governments. We have none that the Russians did anything here.

 

[Syriusly]

Nazi's break into the New York Times and plants a story that FDR was colluding with Japan.

The FBI issues a report stating that the Nazi's had tried to influence our election.

Sarge and easy would be okay with that.

 

[Syriusly]

Hey Syr, prove Sarge wrong - post that 'definitive evidence' you've got.

When did I say I have definitive evidence'? You going with that false narrative again?

Or did you just get tired of seeing the FBI report?

 

[easyt65]

Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter prohibits one country from fucking with the internal matters of another country that are within the jurisdiction of that country.

You're welcome.

No one did any such thing. Assange insists the hack was an inside job and NO ONE has shown any evidence it was not.

He has yet to prove that it was, which makes such information questionable of intent...

Assange is the person who released the info, right?

Is Assange Russian?

Prove the connection between him and the Russians.

 

[Syriusly]

A/RES/20/2131 - Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

So you find fault with what Obama did in Britain, Israel, Libya , Egypt and Syria? We have absolute proof he intervened in those Countries elections or Governments. We have none that the Russians did anything here.

Wow.......you are pissed at Obama for taking out Qaddafi- but not at Russia for trying to influence our election.

Just.....wow

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Still waiting........ It is neither illegal or immoral to post or provide information against a political party or candidate by 3rd parties. There is no law preventing this from happening. The Russians can IN FACT provide information to a third party in the US and that party can release that information. But while we talk about the Russians there is NO actual evidence they provided any information on Hillary Clinton, in fact all the intel says that an OPEN SOURCE code once used by the Russians and now available to ANYONE with an internet connection was used to hack the DNC. And then the intel agencies REFUSED to provide Congress with information about the Intel claims they had proof the Russians hacked the DNC.

It is also information which can't be verified, so it falls under ethical dilemmas...

Sure it can if the people that control the emails want to claim it was false they can release the emails. Failure to do so proves the information is actually truthful.

Not necessarily.....It is upon the accuser to supplement evidence...

Wrong, the leak can only be proven false by the original document. The leaker has no way to prove it other then the refusal of the original to release.