@no1maraudersaid GFY. We went all through this numerous times when discussing your crank theories about the Mueller Report and Russian interference in 2016.
Why don't you explain why what Twitter and Google did is illegal? You're the one claiming it is.
I never claimed it was illegal. Did you claim Russia did anything illegal? Nope, but you still claim they interfered in our election.
@metal-brainsaid I never claimed it was illegal. Did you claim Russia did anything illegal? Nope, but you still claim they interfered in our election.
Yes, what Russia did was illegal and Mueller returned indictments against Russian individuals and organizations. Here's a thread about it where I explain, contrary to your claims I am "lying" about it, that what, for example, what Debbie Wasserman Schultz did wasn't illegal election "meddling" but what the Russians did was. https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/11-indictments-against-russians.177751/page-4
@metal-brainsaid But nobody found any proof of that. The Crowdstrike president admitted that under oath as you are well aware. He said they had no proof.
Are you claiming he was lying? What method of denial are you using this time?
@no1maraudersaid Yes, what Russia did was illegal and Mueller returned indictments against Russian individuals and organizations. Here's a thread about it where I explain, contrary to your claims I am "lying" about it, that what, for example, what Debbie Wasserman Schultz did wasn't illegal election "meddling" but what the Russians did was. https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/11-indictments-against-russians.177751/page-4
DWS was conspiring to interfere with the election. She didn't get to the point of following through. Donna Brazile followed through though. She gave Hitlery the debate questions before the debate. She should be in prison for it. Not sure why she isn't.
Election interference is not conditional because of legality. Besides, crimes are selectively enforced for no justifiable reason in this country. You know that.
@metal-brainsaid DWS was conspiring to interfere with the election. She didn't get to the point of following through. Donna Brazile followed through though. She gave Hitlery the debate questions before the debate. She should be in prison for it. Not sure why she isn't.
Election interference is not conditional because of legality. Besides, crimes are selectively enforced for no justifiable reason in this country. You know that.
What crime do you imagine Donna Brazile committed?
@no1maraudersaid The evidence is in the indictments which I'm sure you never read.
But Crowdstrike said there was no evidence. Are you claiming Crowdstrike is lying? Mueller has a history of going on witch hunts. He is of no help to you.
@metal-brainsaid But Crowdstrike said there was no evidence. Are you claiming Crowdstrike is lying? Mueller has a history of going on witch hunts. He is of no help to you.
This is a waste of time; the evidence is spelled out very specifically in the indictments. Try reading them. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indictment-russian-election-intrusion/story?id=61147180
I'm sure you're misstating what Crowdstrike said, but it doesn't matter.
@metal-brainsaid You still have not defined "election interference". You cannot do that without imposing a double standard and you know it.
You are the one claiming Google and Twitter did it; why don't YOU define it? And do so in a way that it is illegal because if what you describe isn't than it's no story at all.
@no1maraudersaid This is a waste of time; the evidence is spelled out very specifically in the indictments. Try reading them. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indictment-russian-election-intrusion/story?id=61147180
I'm sure you're misstating what Crowdstrike said, but it doesn't matter.
There is no evidence in the indictments. They merely claim they have evidence that is impossible to confirm in writing. It is all based on images copied from the servers. Not that any of that is relevant. As I correctly pointed out to you multiple times, CIA's UMBRAGE proves it is easy to leave false cyber prints making it impossible to find the origin of a hack of a competent hacker.
What Crowdstrike stated was clear. You just don't want to accept facts you don't like.
@no1maraudersaid You are the one claiming Google and Twitter did it; why don't YOU define it? And do so in a way that it is illegal because if what you describe isn't than it's no story at all.
What Twitter did is not in dispute. They admit what they did.
So it has to be illegal for it to be election interference? Is that what you are getting at? That doesn't really make sense either. Even if you could prove Russia hacked the DNC (which you cannot) it isn't illegal if a foreign government does it unless they have a law like the Ukraine has making it illegal to interfere in a foreign election. Does Russia have such a law? If not, it is not illegal.
The CIA interferes in foreign elections. They admitted it. Apparently we don't have any laws to stop the CIA from doing it so it is legal, right?
25 Oct '20 09:50
Twitter's bias against John James
Back to Top