Ugh. Whatever dude. *done*The point is the story that Jesus told in Luke 18 about the sinner who was justified before God and the Pharisees who was NOT justified before God. It is a good thing that Obama admits that he can not justify himself. But if you want to accuse him of being a Pharisees then go ahead, that is on you not me.
We are talking about the server that was in the basement of Hillary house when she was secretary of state. She had the hard drive deleted and scrubbed and the FBI confiscated that server for their investigation.What server was the most vulnerable to being hacked?
Did you read the post you are commenting to? Your answer seems to have nothing to do with it.
The 'Christian protector' Putin has just legally banned holding a prayer meeting in a private house. This is Christian persecution by Putin, for real.
I am sure it seems that way to you. The point is: God's way is NOT man's way. Isa 55 8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.…
In my younger and current not quite as young days. It's a massively stupid thing to do.And, in my younger days, I was vocally critical of your nation's role in that. What about yourself?
It's one of those things that I'm honestly surprised hasn't happened before. We've been doing it for a long time, I'm curious if our leaders were thinking, "Hey you know that thing we like doing to every other country on the planet... I'm sure nobody will ever do it to us."So, do you regard the intervention of a foreign power as some kind of 'just desserts'?
What process are you talking about? Do you have any evidence of rigged voting machines?No, manipulating the process to help install someone they think will more likely do their bidding.
Pretty much, I really like the idea that 'we the people' know what our government is doing in our name. The government sure won't tell us what they are doing so we apparently needs groups who are willing to give that information to third party groups like wikileaks.If I understand you correctly, you like Wikileaks are fine with the damage caused regardless of who is President?
You know that e-mail server we've been told for 2 plus years didn't make a bit of difference and was totes not important?What specific server was hacked?
I don't think you're entirely correct.You know that e-mail server we've been told for 2 plus years didn't make a bit of difference and was totes not important?
After being told that we were wasting everyone time worrying about silly stuff like people with top secret classifications putting data on private servers, apparently those are the servers which were now being told the hacking of sunk the Clinton campaign.
It's one of those things that I'm honestly surprised hasn't happened before. We've been doing it for a long time, I'm curious if our leaders were thinking, "Hey you know that thing we like doing to every other country on the planet... I'm sure nobody will ever do it to us."
What process are you talking about? Do you have any evidence of rigged voting machines?
I really think what did her in was the second investigation of her emails. When the FBI decided to look again it was enough for people.Indeed. If the reports, courtesy of the leaked documents, are correct, the Democrats favoured one of their candidates over the other. I suppose that it could be argued that at least such action was 'in house' - here was a political party charting their own course, rather than having it imposed upon them by some outside, foreign actor.
And the 'flawed, unpopular candidate' argument simply doesn't hold water. The bottom line is that Mrs Clinton won the nation convincingly, receiving almost as many votes as President Obama in his last re-election. 3 million more people wanted her to be president over Trump. She certainly was popular enough.
Now, it can very reasonably be argued that her campaign made tactical errors in failing to concentrate their efforts to a greater degree in those narrowly lost states. But that's tactics, it's not a measure of her popularity, particularly when she wins the total vote count so convincingly.
And the impact of the Russian interference cannot be dismissed here. Could their selective release of leaked documents have been enough to turn those one-in-a-hundred votes in those 3 or 4 states? Highly likely. Flip those 70,000 or so votes the other way and you'd all be touting Mrs Clinton as being every bit as successful as President Obama was.
I really think what did her in was the second investigation of her emails. When the FBI decided to look again it was enough for people.
And I'd be interested to know if you still have treason laws on the 'books' over there?
SteveB28 said:Do they include clauses that deal with a president who refuses to investigate such action?
That's any easy one to answer. In the US, treason is the one crime that is defined in the Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Article III, Section 3
Any prosecution of a sitting President must be through impeachment proceedings carried out by Congress.
You got half of this post right...It's pretty funny that this thread is going on. Russia hacking is just laughable. There is no evidence whatsoever for this and it will be swept under the carpet in about another week and they will have some other emergency to take focus off of it so they can forget the embarrassment.