Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Except it was not a commercial. It is a false statement made at the request of Biden's campaign designed to bolster him.You mean like a typical campaign commercial? Even if they did somehow influence the election (which is unlikely), it's perfectly fine for them to do that. I mean, if they were making false statements, that's unethical, but again, that's like the typical campaign commercial.
The families of the 13 dead in Afghanistan would disagree.*FORMER* titles. Any group of people with fancy histories in government can group together to support a candidate or challenge the claims of a candidate. It's a free country.
Good for him. And he's been doing a good job of it too.
Strawman - this is not about Trump - as much as one would like it to be, it is not.I hear tell that former President Trump has used his title and influence to make false statements to influence a national election. FEC don't care about any of this, even if Jim Jordan expires angry about it.
Yeah, that's a completely, totally different name than a commercial.Except it was not a commercial. It is a false statement made at the request of Biden's campaign designed to bolster him.
Their statement was not false.Except it was not a commercial. It is a false statement made at the request of Biden's campaign designed to bolster him.
The families of the 13 dead in Afghanistan would disagree.
Strawman - this is not about Trump - as much as one would like it to be, it is not.
It is about whether private citizens can provide massive help to a campaign. They can.Strawman - this is not about Trump - as much as one would like it to be, it is not.
Are you implying that, had it been presented as a 30-second TV spot rather than a letter, you would have had no problems with it?Except it was not a commercial. It is a false statement made at the request of Biden's campaign designed to bolster him.
Yes, it certainly isTheir statement was not false.
Not talking about some random private citizen.It is about whether private citizens can provide massive help to a campaign. They can.
NoAre you implying that, had it been presented as a 30-second TV spot rather than a letter, you would have had no problems with it?
Then surely you can point out which parts of their statement are false? I'll quote it here for convenience:Yes, it certainly is
We are all individuals who devoted significant portions of our lives to national security. Some of us served in senior positions in policy departments and agencies, and some of us served in senior positions in the Intelligence Community. Some of us were political appointees, and some were career officials. Many of us worked for presidents of both political parties.
We are all also individuals who see Russia as one of our nation’s primary adversaries. All of us have an understanding of the wide range of Russian overt and covert activities that undermine US national security, with some of us knowing Russian behavior intimately, as we worked to defend our nation against it for a career. A few of us worked against Russian information operations in the United States in the last several years.
Perhaps most important, each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections, not foreign governments. All of us agree with the founding fathers’ concern about the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy. It is for all these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden’s son Hunter, much of it related to his timeserving on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.
We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.
If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.
There are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.
Such an operation would be consistent with Russian objectives, as outlined publicly and recently by the Intelligence Community, to create political chaos in the United States and to deepen political divisions here but also to undermine the candidacy of former Vice President Biden and thereby help the candidacy of President Trump. For the Russians at this point, with Trump down in the polls, there is incentive for Moscow to pull out the stops to do anything possible to help Trump win and/or to weaken Biden should he win. A “laptop op” fits the bill, as the publication of the emails are clearly designed to discredit Biden.
Such an operation would be consistent with some of the key methods Russia has used in its now multi-year operation to interfere in our democracy – the hacking (via cyber operations) and the dumping of accurate information or the distribution of inaccurate or misinformation. Russia did both of these during the 2016 presidential election – judgments shared by the US Intelligence Community, the investigation into Russian activities by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the entirety (all Republicans and Democrats) on the current Senate Intelligence Committee.
Such an operation is also consistent with several data points. The Russians, according to media reports and cybersecurity experts, targeted Burisma late last year for cyber collection and gained access to its emails. And Ukrainian politician and businessman Adriy Derkach, identified and sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for being a 10-year Russian agent interfering in the 2020 election, passed purported materials on Burisma and Hunter Biden to Giuliani.
Our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue is consistent with two other significant data points as well. According to the Washington Post, citing four sources, “U.S. intelligence agencies warned the White House last year that Giuliani was the target of an influence operation by Russian intelligence.”
In addition, media reports say that the FBI has now opened an investigation into Russian involvement in this case. According to USA Today, “…federal authorities are investigating whether the material supplied to the New York Post by Rudy Giuliani…is part of a smoke bomb of disinformation pushed by Russia.”
We do not know whether these press reports are accurate, but they do suggest concern within Executive Branch departments and agencies that mirrors ours. It is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy.
Then why bother with the distinction?
So, more like this then?Not talking about some random private citizen.
Totes diffSo, more like this then?
Trump earns endorsement of 88 retired generals, admirals
Donald Trump earned the endorsement of 88 retired generals and admirals in an open letter released Tuesday, as the Republican nominee looks to solidify support in the military community against Hillary Clinton in November. The Republican nominee's campaign unveiled the letter, organized by...www.christianforums.com
Read the link in the OP - 65 pages explaining in detailThen surely you can point out which parts of their statement are false? I'll quote it here for convenience:
I did not bring it upThen why bother with the distinction?
There is a difference between people endorsing a candidacy and making a false statement - they were not saying they endorsed Biden - they said the laptop (which they never saw nor reviewed) was Russian disinformation at the request of Biden's campaign - people are waking up to the difference.So, more like this then?
Trump earns endorsement of 88 retired generals, admirals
Donald Trump earned the endorsement of 88 retired generals and admirals in an open letter released Tuesday, as the Republican nominee looks to solidify support in the military community against Hillary Clinton in November. The Republican nominee's campaign unveiled the letter, organized by...www.christianforums.com
No clue what that meansTotes di
In both cases, they were expressing opinions, freely. Like "For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be." Or "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."There is a difference between people endorsing a candidacy and making a false statement
Wrong.In both cases, they were expressing opinions, freely. Like "For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be." Or "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement — just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case."
Yes, it certainly is
I couldn't find that they thought any statement in the letter was false.Read the link in the OP - 65 pages explaining in detail
No, they specifically state that they did not examine the evidence, but the circumstances, particularly the way the emails just showed up at the NYPost via Giuliani seemed very like a Russian disinformation scheme.The other is saying we looked at the evidence and it looks like Russian interference. EXCEPT they never looked at it.
The families of the 13 dead in Afghanistan would disagree.
I did. It does not point out a single false statement from the letter, nor does it make the claim that the statements in the letter are false. That's why I asked you - you're the one saying that the writers made false statements.Read the link in the OP - 65 pages explaining in detail
Where does it say that? I quoted the full text of the letter (minus the title and the signatures) in post #87. Show me where it says "we looked at the evidence". Heck, show me where it says that the writers looked at anything.The other is saying we looked at the evidence and it looks like Russian interference.
It’s sort of a moot point, though, this thread, no?No they didn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?