https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
Here is the declassified proof, and then there has been the testimony of Comey and Clapper.
Printable View
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
Here is the declassified proof, and then there has been the testimony of Comey and Clapper.
But he has also stated that it is not unusual for him not to know based on his position and role. He wasn't part of the investigation regarding collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
No, are you getting leaks? No you aren't because you would not be saying such foolish things if you were. I worked in that community and the operational community for many years and know the how it operates. There is nothing in my statement that implies anything other than how these people state their assessments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The head of ALL intelligence for the US has access to everything and something of this importance would be briefed to him on a daily basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Comey has said otherwise. He said he was not aware of the FBI's counterintelligence investigation that had been going on since July.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
Russians have been "trying" for years to influence. Nothing new there. You still haven't proven that there was collusion between the Russians government and Trump people. And to add to Salty's wonder at firing Comey, Trump should have done it when he took office. Comey was out of line even during the campaign. It wasn't because of the investigation. Besides, there is an independent counsel now to look into this hopefully without political influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Good evening.
Hillary Clinton should have been put in jail and never allowed to run for president.
I never said I have seen proof of collusion, but that is one of the things they are investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
The independent counsel is looking to see if a crime was committed. There is still lots of shady stuff that may have gone on and we need to know about that too.
For what crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
Regardless of what the Special Counsel finds out, I think that Trump has done a terrible job in handling the "fake news" of Russian involvement in his campaign. Hiring Flynn as National Security Adviser has to be one of the stupidest appointments ever. The guy even dragged Jared Kushner into the dumb-ass Russia quicksand. I don't know what these guys were up to in wanting to use Russia communications equipment for a "back-channel" when they were not even in Office yet. I still don't know why Trump wants to be buddy-buddy with Russia, the Evil Empire back then and STILL is.
#3 is totally false. The DNC leak was an inside job, and Julian Assange has hinted as much. And Assange has stated absolutely that the Russians were not the source of the Wikileaks information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Sad that you would believe a hostile intelligence over your own. That is about as unAmerican as it gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Not that you care to learn anything that would discredit your unlearned opinion on the subject, but here is a decent write up on the relevant law and why charges were not brought.Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/wh...-clinton-case/
"Justice Stanley Reed wrote the majority opinion and disagreed that the law was unconstitutionally vague, but only on the very narrow grounds that the law required “intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States.” Only because the court read the law to require scienter, or bad faith, before a conviction could be sustained was the law constitutional. Otherwise, it would be too difficult for a defendant to know when exactly material related to the national defense. The court made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
{The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.}
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f)."
You don't need "intent" to prove that somebody committed a crime.
I read a very liberal newspaper every day, The Arkansas Democrat -Gazette.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp