At this point, does collusion even matter?

[KeepTalking]

Evidence please.
I suspect that Uncle Vlad told you to say that. Sounds a lot like FAKE NEWS.|
Meanwhile, 17 independent intelligence agencies agree with me and call you a liar. Did Hillary do THAT too, or was it Obama?

It's a bit of a fallacy if someone has to disprove an accusation that has no evidence in the first place. Stating one has a credible horse's bottom or two as a source but no evidence just isn't good cricket.

If the 17 agencies say there was interference then let them provide the proof.

They aren't going to provide any of their evidence or proof until they have to do so. After they have the people they want in handcuffs, then you can be sure that the evidence you have been asking for will soon be coming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.google.com/search?q=crowdstrike+russia+report

That didn't actually address my question. I was asking for something indicating that CrowdStrike edited their 2016 Report on the DNC hacking.

 

[barbos]

https://www.google.com/search?q=crowdstrike+russia+report

That didn't actually address my question. I was asking for something indicating that CrowdStrike edited their 2016 Report on the DNC hacking.

My link does answer your question.

 

[laughing dog]

That didn't actually address my question. I was asking for something indicating that CrowdStrike edited their 2016 Report on the DNC hacking.

My link does answer your question.

No, it does not. It refers to a report about hacking in Ukraine that was edited.

 

[LordKiran]

I am willing to peek down that road and see what that may look like. Do you think that truth has value? Do you think that it has high value? How should things with high value be protected?

I think a Ministry of Information is a terrible idea. The best way to deal with misinformation is education and actual information.

but... the point is not about the lies and the lying liars that lie. The point is that spreading misinformation to cause people to act against their own self-interest is wrong, and in politics should be HIGHLY illegal... Treasonous, even. Spreading facts that cause people to act (one way or the other), is not wrong. It is heroic.

In order to show that someone acted against their own self-interest, one would need to be able establish that you know better what that person should regard as their self-interest. I think it would be rare situation indeed where one could do that.

Who needs a ministry? A few laws that empower pre-existing agencies (The FCC perhaps) would be all you need.

Far more useful for stymieing the flow of bullshit would be the removal of internet anonymity though. Supposed fake news becomes easy to combat, when you can easily distinguish between bots and real people, and it becomes much easier to trace bullshit back to it's source.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a bit of a fallacy if someone has to disprove an accusation that has no evidence in the first place. Stating one has a credible horse's bottom or two as a source but no evidence just isn't good cricket.

If the 17 agencies say there was interference then let them provide the proof.

They aren't going to provide any of their evidence or proof until they have to do so. After they have the people they want in handcuffs, then you can be sure that the evidence you have been asking for will soon be coming.

You have to provide sufficient evidence to be able to hold people in prison to formally charge them. This requires a sufficient weight of evidence in which to build a case. Without this the authorities cannot hold anyone or charge the accused.

Then in a criminal case it will be beyond any doubt (shadow of a doubt) before they are judged guilty in a court of law. Reliable anonymous sources bear no worth in a court of law.


https://www.trans-lex.org/966000/_/distribution-of-burden-of-proof/
No. XII.1 - Distribution of burden of proof


The burden of proof rests on the party who advances a proposition affirmatively ("actori incumbit onus probandi").

and
http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/semper-necessitas-probandi-incumbit-ei-qui-agit/

Semper Necessitas Probandi Incumbit Ei Qui Agit
The claimant Is always bound to prove; the burden of proof lies on him.

This principle applies to civil and criminal issues.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That didn't actually address my question. I was asking for something indicating that CrowdStrike edited their 2016 Report on the DNC hacking.

My link does answer your question.

Well your link says a 2014 report that is cited in the 2016 report was modified. So what the heck are you going on about?

 

[barbos]

My link does answer your question.

Well your link says a 2014 report that is cited in the 2016 report was modified. So what the heck are you going on about?

All reports are from 2016, and Ukrainian report was then linked to DNC hacking by the boss of Crowdstrike, and then in 2017 it was found out that Ukrainian report was utter crap which had no basis in reality. I am hesitant to call Crowdstrike a lying sack of shit but there is a distinct stink.
At best their M.O. seems to be based on reading blogs and at worst they were hired by DNC with only one goal - to lie.

 

[braces_for_impact]

In answer to the OP, I think that collusion shouldn't matter considering the this administration is inept and corrupt almost beyond belief, and that should be the criteria by which this administration is removed. Unfortunately, proving collusion could be helpful because the despicable Republicans have proven themselves able to overlook almost anything in order to stay in power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well your link says a 2014 report that is cited in the 2016 report was modified. So what the heck are you going on about?

All reports are from 2016, and Ukrainian report was then linked to DNC hacking by the boss of Crowdstrike, and then in 2017 it was found out that Ukrainian report was utter crap which had no basis in reality. I am hesitant to call Crowdstrike a lying sack of shit but there is a distinct stink.
At best their M.O. seems to be based on reading blogs and at worst they were hired by DNC with only one goal - to lie.

Got it, so one report being modified means all of their reports are bogus. I hope you haven't edited any of your posts, because you know what that means.

 

[barbos]

All reports are from 2016, and Ukrainian report was then linked to DNC hacking by the boss of Crowdstrike, and then in 2017 it was found out that Ukrainian report was utter crap which had no basis in reality. I am hesitant to call Crowdstrike a lying sack of shit but there is a distinct stink.
At best their M.O. seems to be based on reading blogs and at worst they were hired by DNC with only one goal - to lie.

Got it, so one report being modified means all of their reports are bogus. I hope you haven't edited any of your posts, because you know what that means.

Modified is a very generous way to call what is effectively recalling it. They based their whole report on a single post of a russian anonymous blogger/troll, they did not even check the sources that troll claimed to use, they simply copied it without checking. Their conclusion was debunked by everybody - by british, ukrainian and authors of the program.

 

[KeepTalking]

They aren't going to provide any of their evidence or proof until they have to do so. After they have the people they want in handcuffs, then you can be sure that the evidence you have been asking for will soon be coming.

You have to provide sufficient evidence to be able to hold people in prison to formally charge them. This requires a sufficient weight of evidence in which to build a case. Without this the authorities cannot hold anyone or charge the accused.

Yes, but you do this on a grand jury or arraignment hearing, after you have the person in handcuffs. Generally speaking you release as little evidence as possible to the public before doing this. You certainly don't give whichphilosophy a call to make sure he is aware of the evidence before arresting the suspect, and placing them in handcuffs.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You have to provide sufficient evidence to be able to hold people in prison to formally charge them. This requires a sufficient weight of evidence in which to build a case. Without this the authorities cannot hold anyone or charge the accused.

Yes, but you do this on a grand jury or arraignment hearing, after you have the person in handcuffs. Generally speaking you release as little evidence as possible to the public before doing this. You certainly don't give whichphilosophy a call to make sure he is aware of the evidence before arresting the suspect, and placing them in handcuffs.

My point is there is insufficient evidence to get to this point.

 

[Elixir]

My point is there is insufficient evidence to get to this point.

My point is that only a moron would think he knows all the evidence when he isn't any part of the investigation.

 

[blastula]

Who's in prison without evidence?

 

[Elixir]

Who's in prison without evidence?

Dunno, but I bet he ain't white.

 

[whichphilosophy]

My point is there is insufficient evidence to get to this point.

My point is that only a moron would think he knows all the evidence when he isn't any part of the investigation.

It's not a matter of knowing the evidence, it's a matter of seeing the evidence. Do you sometimes watch Judge Judy?

 

[Elixir]

It's not a matter of knowing the evidence, it's a matter of seeing the evidence.

It's a matter of a space-alien-believing right winger thinking that what he sees is all there is.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's not a matter of knowing the evidence, it's a matter of seeing the evidence.

It's a matter of a space-alien-believing right winger thinking that what he sees is all there is.

Believing has nothing to do with it. Whether what you say is correct, bears no worth unless there is evidence containing, times places, sequence of events and how they took place. Opinions of experts and assumptions are at best hit and miss.

 

[Elixir]

It's a matter of a space-alien-believing right winger thinking that what he sees is all there is.

Believing has nothing to do with it. Whether what you say is correct, bears no worth unless there is evidence containing, times places, sequence of events and how they took place. .

So stop pretending that you know there is no evidence. Duh!