News I Never Heard....how about you?

[Boca]

I didn't screw up, you did.

Looky here, you said, If they can work out a way to provide discovery without handing sources and methods.....

I said, Are you trying to say that there has never been a prosecution of a spy or foreign agent because the DOJ, together with our intelligence agencies, haven't figured out a way to protect their sources or methods.

So yes, that's exactly what you said! And then you ran away from it.

 

[Boca]

Is your Short attention span problem acting up again? I asked you what the evidence was that data was copied to a local USB drive on the DNC server.

What evidence do you have that it wasn't?

The nest of vipers in the Obama Administration to include those 17 intelligence agencies saying so doesn't count for the obvious reason they are all under investigation.

So what's your admissible evidence now.

 

[middleview]

What evidence do you have that it wasn't?

The nest of vipers in the Obama Administration to include those 17 intelligence agencies saying so doesn't count for the obvious reason they are all under investigation.

So what's your admissible evidence now.

I don't need evidence that it wasn't. You've suggested the file metadata proves something. I've just shown that it doesn't. So the idea that that theory is somehow evidence is false.
Anything else you'd like to discuss?

Got a link to show an investigation under way of the intelligence agencies?

 

[FakeName]

Looky here, you said, If they can work out a way to provide discovery without handing sources and methods.....

I said, Are you trying to say that there has never been a prosecution of a spy or foreign agent because the DOJ, together with our intelligence agencies, haven't figured out a way to protect their sources or methods.

So yes, that's exactly what you said! And then you ran away from it.

No, that is not at all what i said.

The us government has indeed tried cases where top secret info like sources and methods are at stake and it is difficult to balance that with rights of the accused like discovery. Each of those cases is different. Sometimes an arrangement was reached, other times the case was dropped to avoid divulging secrets. Other times the conflict was avoided in other ways. Guantanamo comes to mind.

 

[Boca]

No, that is not at all what i said.

The us government has indeed tried cases where top secret info like sources and methods are at stake and it is difficult to balance that with rights of the accused like discovery. Each of those cases is different. Sometimes an arrangement was reached, other times the case was dropped to avoid divulging secrets. Other times the conflict was avoided in other ways. Guantanamo comes to mind.

Whatever....you've established yourself as a troll throwing out shit with no accountability.

Though it is nice to know that you are aware there have been prosecutions while all this time trying to defend Herr Mueller for his efforts to rile up TDS victims and keep the phony Russian narrative alive.

Nothing else to say.....carry on.

 

[Boca]

I don't need evidence that it wasn't. You've suggested the file metadata proves something. I've just shown that it doesn't. So the idea that that theory is somehow evidence is false.
Anything else you'd like to discuss?

Got a link to show an investigation under way of the intelligence agencies?

You never need evidence for what you claim to be fact. Never!

Once more. do you have evidence that the USB device wasn't locally, in house, used to download those emails? If not get lost.

As for the link about investigations I refer you to public statements by the Attorney General.

 

[FakeName]

Whatever....you've established yourself as a troll throwing out shit with no accountability.

Though it is nice to know that you are aware there have been prosecutions while all this time trying to defend Herr Mueller for his efforts to rile up TDS victims and keep the phony Russian narrative alive.

Nothing else to say.....carry on.

What a dodge.

I will take that as a concession.

 

[FakeName]

Once more. do you have evidence that the USB device wasn't locally, in house, used to download those emails? If not get lost.

You cant require evidence to prove a negative.

You are the one asserting the positive, the burden of proof is on you.

Do you have evidence that their is not an invisible monster under the bed?

 

[Boca]

What a dodge.

I will take that as a concession.

What you should take is an enema.

 

[FakeName]

What you should take is an enema.

??

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The Fact that the Russians were behind it is an established fact and not in doubt.

Come back to the real world.

Kind of like the "settled science" on climate change, am I right?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You indict them because they committed crimes against the USA.

They didn't "show up", they didnt turn themselves in. They wanted discovery, which contains sources and methods, turned over to the lawyers, which would end up in the hands of the former KGB.

Of course we aren't going to do that.

Do you hate your country or something?

That's the way our laws work. Do you hate the constitution or something?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

And who made these file publicly available ? Wikileaks perhaps ? If so they control what is in the metadata before they released them. It was there's to freely alter before they became publicly available.

To edit the metadata on image files, do the following:

1. Right-click the file and select Properties.
2. In the image properties, click on the Details tab.

So what, exactly, is the "evidence" that suggests it was Russians, and where did it come from?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

No, that is not at all what i said.

The us government has indeed tried cases where top secret info like sources and methods are at stake and it is difficult to balance that with rights of the accused like discovery. Each of those cases is different. Sometimes an arrangement was reached, other times the case was dropped to avoid divulging secrets. Other times the conflict was avoided in other ways. Guantanamo comes to mind.

So you're all for suspending due process for the sake of a "national security" claim. Well-done, Comrade.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Is your Short attention span problem acting up again? I asked you what the evidence was that data was copied to a local USB drive on the DNC server.

What is the "evidence" that it was downloaded via the internet?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I don't need evidence that it wasn't. You've suggested the file metadata proves something. I've just shown that it doesn't. So the idea that that theory is somehow evidence is false.
Anything else you'd like to discuss?

Got a link to show an investigation under way of the intelligence agencies?

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/445347-trump-orders-intel-agencies-to-cooperate-with-barr-probe-into-spying

 

[Deleted member 21794]

That's the way our laws work. Do you hate the constitution or something?

This one in particular is quite against due process. The disagreement began when he was shown that Mueller indicted these people, but then hemmed and hawed when a speedy trial was demanded by counsel. It's all been downhill since there, with his blabbering about national security being cause for relinquishing rights to a speedy trial.

Of course, the only thing going on here is Mueller never figured these people would answer the charges. We were supposed to be impressed that he had X number of Russians under indictment. The fact that he really didn't have a case to move forward should terrify any American citizen. Unfortunately, with leftists, we are dealing with totalitarian thugs who love the prospect of our justice system being weaponized and altered as needed to get political adversaries.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

What is the "evidence" that it was downloaded via the internet?

You mean besides the fact the copying occurred at speeds far faster than possible over the internet?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You cant require evidence to prove a negative.

You are the one asserting the positive, the burden of proof is on you.

Do you have evidence that their is not an invisible monster under the bed?

It's consistent with Assange's eye witness testimony that is was done by a DNC insider, so no, the burden of "proof" is on you who are contesting that theory.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

This one in particular is quite against due process. The disagreement began when he was shown that Mueller indicted these people, but then hemmed and hawed when a speedy trial was demanded by counsel. It's all been downhill since there, with his blabbering about national security being cause for relinquishing rights to a speedy trial.

Of course, the only thing going on here is Mueller never figured these people would answer the charges. We were supposed to be impressed that he had X number of Russians under indictment. The fact that he really didn't have a case to move forward should terrify any American citizen. Unfortunately, with leftists, we are dealing with totalitarian thugs who love the prospect of our justice system being weaponized and altered as needed to get political adversaries.

Mueller is a dirt bag corrupt prosecutor. Keep an eye out for a top post on something I bought this week that seems to be flying under the radar around here.