Page 58 of 130 FirstFirst ... 8484950515253545556575859606162636465666768108 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 1299
  1. #571
    Senior Tech. 2,500+ Posts NeoMatrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sunshine State QLD.
    Posts
    3,514
    Rep Power
    104

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by bsm2 View Post
    {random snip}

    You might know that a man ran into a building with a gun, then a person was shot in the building, and then the man ran out. All this would be evidence he committed the murder, while perhaps falling short of proof. Proof is a very high standard to meet. But evidence of collusion? There’s simply no question that there is evidence. Lots and lots of it.
    Re. Proof.
    You are nearly there.
    Proof alone is not grounding or sufficient. You have to prove "INTENT" beyond reasonable doubt.

    Examples of willing/wilful Intent...
    Did the man with the gun have a plastic toy water pistol? His "intent" would be humours trick-or-treat.
    Did the man enter the building running from a mob trying to kill him? His "intent" would be self defence.
    Did the man run into the building to kill terrorist insurgence? The "intent" would be hero/martyrdom/suicide.
    Did the man run into the building to kill his cancerous brother,so his brothers family could receive insurance. His "intent" would be love.

    Given the above "intent" examples:
    Based on "proof alone" how would you sentence the man with the gun to a prison term?
    Based on "intent" how would a jury sentence the same man to a prison term.
    Last edited by NeoMatrix; 05-03-2018 at 12:01 AM.
    Inauguration to the "AI cancel-culture" fraternity 1997...
    •••••• •••[§]• |N | € | o | M | Δ | t | π | ‘ | x | •[§]••• ••••••

  2. #572
    Aging Tech 10,000+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    copier addict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Diamond
    Posts
    11,916
    Rep Power
    322

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoMatrix View Post
    Re. Proof.
    You are nearly there.
    Proof alone is not grounding or sufficient. You have to prove "INTENT" beyond reasonable doubt.

    Examples of willing/wilful Intent...
    Did the man with the gun have a plastic toy water pistol? His "intent" would be humours trick-or-treat.
    Did the man enter the building running from a mob trying to kill him? His "intent" would be self defence.
    Did the man run into the building to kill terrorist insurgence? The "intent" would be hero/martyrdom/suicide.
    Did the man run into the building to kill his cancerous brother,so his brothers family could receive insurance. His "intent" would be love.

    Given the above "intent" examples:
    Based on "proof alone" how would you sentence the man with the gun to a prison term?
    Based on "intent" how would a jury sentence the same man to a prison term.
    In bsm2's statement, collusion is the intent. So, as he said, proving the collusion is difficult. Especially since if there was collusion trump and the gang would simply lie about it.

  3. #573
    Senior Tech. 2,500+ Posts NeoMatrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Sunshine State QLD.
    Posts
    3,514
    Rep Power
    104

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by copier addict View Post
    In bsm2's statement, collusion is the intent. So, as he said, proving the collusion is difficult. Especially since if there was collusion trump and the gang would simply lie about it.
    Two or more sporting teams play against each other every single day. Those same teams conspire/collude to bring down the other sporting team with skill,pain an sometimes humiliation after defeat. Those given team members conspire within the group to organise a strategy or method of dominance over other teams. What is the true "intent" of those conspiring within those sporting groups? Does society morally accept those sporting teams and their methods of "intent" to dominate? It appears society accepts most sporting teams collusion with intent to dominate within the rules of a given sport. The "intent" of sports to conspire/collude to dominate is an accepted normal by our moral society.

    Concluding:
    The act of collusion/conspiring is driven or motivated by the rules of positive or negative "intent".
    "Intent" is the morally acceptable act propagated by/within the individual,conspiring or colluding group.

    """What is the true intent of the individual or group.....?"""

    Does the socially moral belief system fit within the (sometimes very grey area) actions or results of the colluding group?

    Collusion or otherwise, it still comes down to positive or negative "INTENT".
    Inauguration to the "AI cancel-culture" fraternity 1997...
    •••••• •••[§]• |N | € | o | M | Δ | t | π | ‘ | x | •[§]••• ••••••

  4. #574
    Field Supervisor 500+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Concord, NH
    Posts
    770
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by bsm2 View Post
    Trump Says There’s No Evidence of Collusion. There Is So Much Evidence Already.

    “Would any defense lawyer advise @realDonaldTrump to meet with SC Mueller? In the absence of any evidence of collusion, why?” asks conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt. “No collusion = end of inquiry.” The idea that Robert Mueller has no evidence of collusion, and that he has instead diverted his interest into the secondary crime of obstruction of justice, has been taken up by Trump and repeated on the right so frequently it has settled into seeming hardened fact.


    Of course, what Mueller knows about collusion and what the public knows about collusion are two different things. Even we mere civilians have access to a great deal of information on cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia. Whether this body of information amounts to proof of collusion is something you could dispute if you took an especially stringent definition of the terms “proof” and “collusion.”


    You might know that a man ran into a building with a gun, then a person was shot in the building, and then the man ran out. All this would be evidence he committed the murder, while perhaps falling short of proof. Proof is a very high standard to meet. But evidence of collusion? There’s simply no question that there is evidence. Lots and lots of it.
    You state there is sooo much evidence of collusion! State the facts of your claim! What is the evidence? Just more group think hysteria that because Trump won the election that there must have been collusion. After 18 months of investigation do you not think that if there was any collusion they would have found it by now? Yet they have not! You claim that stringent proof of collusion is not relevant, that goes against all codes of the law. According to your way of thinking just because an accusation is made without any "proof" it must be true. This reminds me of the French revolution in the 1790's where just an accusation no proof, resulted in your head being cut off!

  5. #575
    Service Manager 10,000+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Phil B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    22,656
    Rep Power
    658

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoMatrix View Post
    Re. Proof.
    You are nearly there.
    Proof alone is not grounding or sufficient. You have to prove "INTENT" beyond reasonable doubt.
    Examples of willing/wilful Intent...
    Did the man with the gun have a plastic toy water pistol? His "intent" would be humours trick-or-treat.
    Did the man enter the building running from a mob trying to kill him? His "intent" would be self defence.
    Did the man run into the building to kill terrorist insurgence? The "intent" would be hero/martyrdom/suicide.
    Did the man run into the building to kill his cancerous brother,so his brothers family could receive insurance. His "intent" would be love.
    Given the above "intent" examples:
    Based on "proof alone" how would you sentence the man with the gun to a prison term?
    Based on "intent" how would a jury sentence the same man to a prison term.
    that is EXACTLY -=WHY=- Comey said he didn't see " INTENT " in the the statements that Hillary ( not under oath ) and the reason that Hillary declared Mills's and Samuelson her ' lawyers ' ..(client/attorney priv).

    BUT let DJT even TRY to MENTION that.... OHFN!

    but as far as 'hacked emails' maybe they should make ALL gov't workers go thru a 3hr training for the company like I did, re: EMAILS... How to spot a SCAM/Virus/Phishing message!

  6. #576
    IT Manager 10,000+ Posts bsm2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Biden 2024
    Posts
    25,755
    Rep Power
    333

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by Santander View Post
    You state there is sooo much evidence of collusion! State the facts of your claim! What is the evidence? Just more group think hysteria that because Trump won the election that there must have been collusion. After 18 months of investigation do you not think that if there was any collusion they would have found it by now? Yet they have not! You claim that stringent proof of collusion is not relevant, that goes against all codes of the law. According to your way of thinking just because an accusation is made without any "proof" it must be true. This reminds me of the French revolution in the 1790's where just an accusation no proof, resulted in your head being cut off!

    Reading is required Remember NO RUSSIAN MEETINGS OOOPS
    SOON VERY SOON TICK TOCK

  7. #577
    Service Manager 10,000+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Phil B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    22,656
    Rep Power
    658

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by Santander View Post
    You state there is sooo much evidence of collusion! State the facts of your claim! What is the evidence? Just more group think hysteria that because Trump won the election that there must have been collusion. After 18 months of investigation do you not think that if there was any collusion they would have found it by now? Yet they have not! You claim that stringent proof of collusion is not relevant, that goes against all codes of the law. According to your way of thinking just because an accusation is made without any "proof" it must be true. This reminds me of the French revolution in the 1790's where just an accusation no proof, resulted in your head being cut off!
    No! they DO think there is collusion!!!
    NO ONE has brought PROOF ( other than that DEBUNKED Dossier ! BTW there is ANOTHER one on the way! LOMFL ) of collusion ..and NOW they want to go back 10-15-20-30 years to MANUFACTURE something against him. The MORE they dig..the more dirt they dig up on the Dems... ( kinda refreshing! )

    wonder how they would feel if we dug that deep, that far back on say Obama ( ayers/dohrn ) or the Clintons ( too many to mention ) or hell let's even go with Pelosi/Reid/Franken/Feinstien ect ect ect.

    no one is PERFECT but MOST congressmen(people) enter 'broke' and exit (decades later) multimillionaires ( on 175k a YEAR! working only 1/2 of the calendar days )

  8. #578
    Service Manager 10,000+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Phil B.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    22,656
    Rep Power
    658

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by NeoMatrix View Post
    Two or more sporting teams play against each other every single day. Those same teams conspire/collude to bring down the other sporting team with skill,pain an sometimes humiliation after defeat. Those given team members conspire within the group to organise a strategy or method of dominance over other teams. What is the true "intent" of those conspiring within those sporting groups? Does society morally accept those sporting teams and their methods of "intent" to dominate? It appears society accepts most sporting teams collusion with intent to dominate within the rules of a given sport. The "intent" of sports to conspire/collude to dominate is an accepted normal by our moral society.
    Concluding:
    The act of collusion/conspiring is driven or motivated by the rules of positive or negative "intent".
    "Intent" is the morally acceptable act propagated by/within the individual,conspiring or colluding group.
    """What is the true intent of the individual or group.....?"""
    Does the socially moral belief system fit within the (sometimes very grey area) actions or results of the colluding group?
    Collusion or otherwise, it still comes down to positive or negative "INTENT".
    what you state might be true.
    the BIG thing is, there is no LAW in the American Constitution that says COLLUSION is criminal. Like you stated EVERYONE does it.

  9. #579
    Service Manager 5,000+ Posts
    How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    SalesServiceGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    7,698
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by Santander View Post
    You state there is sooo much evidence of collusion! State the facts of your claim! What is the evidence? Just more group think hysteria that because Trump won the election that there must have been collusion. After 18 months of investigation do you not think that if there was any collusion they would have found it by now? Yet they have not! You claim that stringent proof of collusion is not relevant, that goes against all codes of the law. According to your way of thinking just because an accusation is made without any "proof" it must be true. This reminds me of the French revolution in the 1790's where just an accusation no proof, resulted in your head being cut off!
    I seem to recall the Republican party harassed Hillary Clinton for 2.5 years over Benghazi! End result nada, nothing but the Republicans kept
    the story alive well past when it should have been buried.

    The Russian collusion story = Benghazi 2.0

    Sometimes the flip side can be a bitch!

  10. #580
    IT Manager 10,000+ Posts bsm2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Biden 2024
    Posts
    25,755
    Rep Power
    333

    Re: How Russia hacked the Democrats email

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil B. View Post
    what you state might be true.
    the BIG thing is, there is no LAW in the American Constitution that says COLLUSION is criminal. Like you stated EVERYONE does it.

    Glad your not My Lawyer

    Collusion Law and Legal Definition
    Collusion occurs when two persons or representatives of an entity or organization make an agreement to deceive or mislead another. Such agreements are usually secretive, and involve fraud or gaining an unfair advantage over a third party, competitors, consumers or others with whom they are negotiating. The collusion, therefore, makes the bargaining process inherently unfair. Collusion can involve price or wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship betweeen the colluding parties.



    A potentially applicable criminal law is 52 U.S.C. 30121, which governs campaign contributions by foreign nationals. It makes it a crime for a foreign national to make a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” to a campaign -- and a crime for an American to “solicit, accept, or receive” such a contribution.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Get the Android App
click or scan for the Copytechnet Mobile App

-= -= -= -= -=


IDrive Remote Backup

Lunarpages Internet Solutions

Advertise on Copytechnet

Your Link Here