BowlBrother85
1 star recruit
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 44,598
- Likes
- 39,182
Are you kidding? Mueller has already said (in the Russian indictments) that no Americans were knowingly involved in the hacking.Manipulate the results of a Presidential election... as far as an American citizen such as Roger Stone is concerned, this can also be construed as treason.
We'll see where it goes... Stone clearly did have advanced knowledge of the releases and was working as a go between with WikiLeaks and (as well as Corsi) the Trump campaign to minimize the damage of the Access Hollywood video on the Trump campaign.Are you kidding? Mueller has already said (in the Russian indictments) that no Americans were knowingly involved in the hacking.
If anything, he knew about it and didn't report it.
I'm not an attorney... I think having correspondence and a mutually beneficial relationship with a hostile actor to the United States (such as Assange has proven to be, time and time again) was not a very smart thing for Stone to be doing. It's perilously close to treason.Does that constitute treason?
Again, there's no proof that any of this altered a single vote.There is no way to know that... and it really doesn't matter. Trump clearly saw the WikiLeaks releases as an advantage for him and he did use them at his rallies: "I Love WikiLeaks!"
I think it was a mistake but his reasoning made sense... Trump was shouting "The system is rigged, folks!" at his campaign rallies and Obama was very sensitive to the perception that any action he took would either be interpreted as assisting the Clinton campaign or making a proactive excuse for her losing the election.Again, there's no proof that any of this altered a single vote.
The real question is, why didn't Obama do more to stop the hacks? He knew about the looming cyber threat and gave a stand down order.
1. He could've easily allowed the CIA and the NSA be running classified cyber ops to prevent the Russian hacks.I think it was a mistake but his reasoning made sense... Trump was shouting "The system is rigged, folks!" at his campaign rallies and Obama was very sensitive to the perception that any action he took would either be interpreted as assisting the Clinton campaign or making a proactive excuse for her losing the election.
This isn't hard to call BS on. In the hyper-cynical world we live in today, conservatives would be howling "FALSE FLAG!" and would still not want to believe that the Russians had tried to assist Trump. The DNC was supposedly sending bombs to themselves two months ago, remember?1. He could've easily allowed the CIA and the NSA be running classified cyber ops to prevent the Russian hacks.
2. Even if leaked sooner or later, Obama would be portrayed as a hero credited with stopping the Russians.
All but maybe Infowars readers would have looked very highly on Obama for doing such a thing.
So Obama was more concerned about political perception than saving the integrity of our elections.This isn't hard to call BS on. In the hyper-cynical world we live in today, conservatives would be howling "FALSE FLAG!" and would still not want to believe that the Russians had tried to assist Trump. The DNC was supposedly sending bombs to themselves two months ago, remember?
So Obama was more concerned about political perception than saving the integrity of our elections.