DNC election meddling and Russia

@Metal-Brain said
"This doesn’t mean that all direct evidence is true"

Yes it does. You cannot say I have evidence, but it is not true. Evidence is always true. If it was not nobody would trust evidence and it would not mean anything.

If evidence is not always true give me an example. And don't use circumstantial evidence as an example. Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

Mistaken eyewitness identification.

Stop showing your ignorance and read the links I provided.

@no1marauder said
The Mueller Report has the exact dates and names of the files the GRU sent to Wikileaks containing the stolen emails released before the Democratic Convention to sow discord between the Clinton and Sanders factions:

" On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new atte ...[text shortened]... ational Convention began three days later.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/report.pdf

Volume I, p. 46

How could Mueller possibly know that? He didn't have access to wikileaks' computer or GRU's computer. And how do you know Guccifer 2 is GRU?

@no1marauder said
Mistaken eyewitness identification.

Stop showing your ignorance and read the links I provided.

That is circumstantial evidence. Pictures and video footage is evidence.

@sonhouse said
Says the Russian propagandist, a communist party member, Another member of the 'lets rewrite history so Russia and Trump doesn't look so bad as they obviously look now"

If it was Russia that exposed election meddling by hacking the DNC why do democrats refuse to thank them for the great service? Why are they such ingrates?

Do you have crush on Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Is that why you can forgive her? Or is it that you hate Sanders and you think it was a good idea to election meddle for Hillary Clinton?

@Metal-Brain said
That is circumstantial evidence. Pictures and video footage is evidence.

You can claim 2x2=743 not 4 but that doesn't make it so.

The legal definitions for these terms is well established and aren't changed by stubborn and ignorant internet posters.

@Earl-of-Trumps said
All the evidences were there. Of course Seth Rich's death was an execution. All his valuables left on him???

I also remember two other points;
a) Seth Rich has a twin brother, Aaron, in New Zealand. And he told Washington officials that he had a copy
of the DNC email files on a thumb drive that his brother gave him and he would be glad to go to Washington to show ...[text shortened]... e. It had to have been downloaded to something like a local thumbdrive.

And STILL they ignore it.

b) is true, but a is not.

@no1marauder said
You can claim 2x2=743 not 4 but that doesn't make it so.

The legal definitions for these terms is well established and aren't changed by stubborn and ignorant internet posters.

Then prove that is the legal definition. I don't believe you.

@Metal-Brain said
Then prove that is the legal definition. I don't believe you.

"It [evidence] also includes so called circumstantial evidence......"

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

Now "prove" your definitions are correct and the legal dictionary is wrong.

@Metal-Brain said
If it was Russia that exposed election meddling by hacking the DNC why do democrats refuse to thank them for the great service? Why are they such ingrates?

Do you have crush on Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Is that why you can forgive her? Or is it that you hate Sanders and you think it was a good idea to election meddle for Hillary Clinton?

Continuing your blatant attempt to rewrite history. Sorry, not gonna work. Tell it to the Russians, they will love your lies.

@no1marauder said
"It [evidence] also includes so called circumstantial evidence......"

https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

Now "prove" your definitions are correct and the legal dictionary is wrong.

That doesn't prove eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence.
Stop evading giving me an answer.

You are wrong and you know it.

@sonhouse said
Continuing your blatant attempt to rewrite history. Sorry, not gonna work. Tell it to the Russians, they will love your lies.

No, you are liar. Russia was accused of hacking the DNC by our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election

It was actually Seth Rich, but let's just assume it was Russia because our government never lies to us. Those emails from the DNC were provided to wikileaks. Our government says it was Russia and Assange said it was not and strongly implied it was Seth Rich. A few a hole politicians said Assange was lying so you repeat that as if it your own opinion.

But let's just assume it was Russia because our government never lies to us. Those emails made Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign in disgrace from the DNC for conspiring to rig the primary election against Bernie Sanders.

https://truthout.org/articles/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-in-disgrace-only-to-be-elevated-by-clinton-to-key-campaign-role/

The DNC was sued in court for it and their defense was that they are allowed to rig the election because they are a privately owned corporation. Pretty messed up, but democrats seem to want to defend it by saying it is legal rather on moral grounds.

https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

There, I proved it again. You are a blatant liar. Go back to your hole.

@Metal-Brain said
That doesn't prove eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence.
Stop evading giving me an answer.

You are wrong and you know it.

You're hopelessly stupid. Read this and admit you have no idea what you are talking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/direct_evidence

@no1marauder said
You're hopelessly stupid. Read this and admit you have no idea what you are talking about: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/direct_evidence

You are projecting your stupidity.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html

You are making an effort to refute evidence in a way that undermines it. If evidence can be wrong how can we trust any evidence? And eyewitness testimony is not all the same. I saw some Asian guy that always looks the same. Yeah, that is the guy. He is Asian. Or was it somebody seeing documents. It's subjective. What kind of eyewitness testimony? Did the person know the defendant or was it just a guy that saw an Asian in the neighborhood, said he was there when he wasn't because he was Asian and they all look the same?

If I know you and you hit a guy with a baseball bat and kill him i know it is you, but what if it is a lie? Is a lie evidence? I know you want to undermine evidence so you can win this debate, but you are making a mockery of evidence to do it. Now you will never be able to win debates because evidence is wrong.

@Metal-Brain said
No, you are liar. Russia was accused of hacking the DNC by our government.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election

It was actually Seth Rich, but let's just assume it was Russia because our government never lies to us. Those emails from the DNC were provided to wikileaks. Our government says it was Russ ...[text shortened]... ation-to-follow-our-rules

There, I proved it again. You are a blatant liar. Go back to your hole.

You didn't prove jack. You are a communist and as such ALWAYS has an agenda which is to destroy the democracy of the US and instill a communist regime. So keep posting your bull crap, your Russian mentors will reward you well.

@sonhouse said
You didn't prove jack. You are a communist and as such ALWAYS has an agenda which is to destroy the democracy of the US and instill a communist regime. So keep posting your bull crap, your Russian mentors will reward you well.

You are a liar. I proved it. Anyone on here can see that.

You needs to be thankful to Russia for exposing election meddling withing the DNC. Assuming our government never lies. But we all know they do. It was not a hack, it was leak which proves it was an inside job. It was Seth Rich. Assange was telling the truth all along. It was not Russia.

https://russiahack.com/dnc-hack-fake-news/

But you do not want to be confused with facts as always.