... the actual article I linked in my OP. It is equally as clear that you also did not click the link to the full previous Politico article (published in 2016).
Goes w/o saying, you know I'm not a blind Trump follower, but I'm also not a person blinded by such hatred of Trump that I can't be intellectually honest and say right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of party.
"Chalupa trying to dig up dirt, etc."
She did more than "try to dig up dirt". She later admitted in a public interview that YES, she did in fact, on behalf of both, the DNC AND the Hillary campaign, (it seems that they were actually one and the same even before the primaries http://tinyurl.com/yccxqpza ) seek out help from a foreign government, Ukraine, to help with getting anything Hillary could use against Trump in the campaign. The then government of Ukraine was more than willing to aid her in taking down Trump (sound a little familiar yet?). This was reported on in 2016, but for some reason, I don't recall anyone ever being charged for not only doing exactly what the Dems cry is against the law and appears to have not been a secret that both the DNC and the Hillary campaign were behind it with only the thinnest of imaginary fake "walls" separating her illegal actions and theirs in using the information as well. Politico now acts as if the 2016 report doesn't exist and even goes as far as to knowingly falsely claim that the information in such a report is Trump propaganda and is therefore, "debunked" (just in case anyone were to ever find the 2016 article I guess? it couldn't possibly be that they are being dishonest because the truth now hurts the Dems while also helping Trump today ...)
That IS what the linked articles prove for anyone willing to do a little research and reading on their own instead of just taking this slanted or that slanted media outlet's view only.
I will make you a deal, Mike. If you are willing to refrain from blindly using Democratic talking points as your main arguments, even when they have nothing to do with the current discussion, and actually respond based on what I am specifically saying and talking about, or respond specifically to the resources I might link based not on whatever imaginary talking point you happen to falsely "think" the resource is trying to promote, I will go a little easy on you and chalk your previous response up to the holidays are a crazy time and you just happened to get a little mixed up. ;D
At no point have I, or the specific sources I linked, ever said anything as stupid as -- IF Ukraine is known to have actively meddled in the 2016 election in support of Hillary (see both the link in my OP and click the link within that article), and in specific opposition of Trump, THEN that must preclude any other country from working to influence the 2016 election. The information I provided never says any such thing either, which is how I know you were not responding to the provided material in my OP. In fact Obama was notified in 2014 that Russia was trying to interfere with our elections (newsflash, so were and still are several other countries at the same time)
DNC ... servers: Another Dem talking point about a subject and false theory not mentioned by me. Even though this not within the scope of the OP, I would like to help you should you find the need to attempt to present such an argument in the future in which you are tempted to once again so authoritatively claim that "There is no DNC server - never has been." While leaving off the "s" at the end of the word server may technically make this talking point "true" in that no, there was not ONLY one single DNC server; in reality, it only highlights the weak & deceptive nature of such DNC talking points. Such tactics also point to someone attempting to argue from a very weak position, or someone who is unable to refute the other person's valid argument.
This link ( http://tinyurl.com/y7gyxefe ) contains information about the DNC's own lawsuit, as well as info on DNC court filings where the DNC tells the court that, yes, the DNC did have actual servers that they claimed were hacked (I say claimed because there is actual proof that the stolen files were downloaded from local computer(s) directly as opposed to by way of the internet) . It also talks about the DNC & their connection with security firm CrowdStrike.
"The FBI doesn't confiscate computers to investigate a hack"
Do I really have to point out that Yes, if the FBI, hell, even your local PD, are investigating a reported hack, the computers will be seized and the FBI will be the ones looking into the validity of the claim of a hack. Besides just the common sense of such a truth, even fake weekly TV dramas know this fact. jut sayn'
Now, what say you, Mike? Or anyone else who is willing to do a little reading? |
