Worse... They have the hand on (or can quickly, as authoritarian gov) their social & classic medias, not as much than china, wich is a prison, but still.
Yet "the free world" is winning, but is about to fall because the giants like facebooze, Twittert, google, youtube, will soon or later get a stance.
At this stage it could end up in truely cyber destructive actions, since the censorship will be on both sides.

you're right, he's wrong. opposition research/"dirt" ABSOLUTELY has a monetary value, it may not be quantifiable, but it absolutely is worth $.

But can it be realistically enforced?

There's a montary value in me telling you that walmart sells hotdogs for 50c less than where you currently buy them, but it's hardly enforcable as me giving you something of value. (As an extreme example)

Russia (through Russian Oligarch Aras Agalarov, Emin's father) promised dirt on Hillary: (actual quote from that email: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.", Treason Jr. replied: "I love it".

now let's revisit what I posted earlier...



>a foreign (Russian) national promised "dirt" on Hillary, the "dirt" being the contribution.
>by taking the meeting, Treason Jr. (which Trump obviously was aware of) is committing a clear violation.

Like I said, not worth impeachment by itself, but could be used as a piece of a larger conspiracy case.

your example is a bit different in nature though: i'm not even talking about quantifying the value of the information itself to the recipient, but the effort to OBTAIN said information.

in your case, it doesn't cost you anything to relay that information to me. to pay hackers and agents, however, DOES require a (significant) amount of monetary input.

it's the double standard that bothers me to say that for the sanders campaign you charge the monetary INPUT to obtain a certain advantage (that was NOT monetary), but for trump's campaign you DON'T consider the (significantly bigger and certainly illegal) monetary INPUT, but only the result because you don't consider the information itself to fall under the definition that makes this punishable...

yup, this.

i've always found the Trump tower meeting as a focus for the investigation to be laughable. It was stupid for the Trump team to take the meeting, and in reality would never have produced any actual information.

When russia found out the Hillary had shit on a server, they hacked it and released it via Wikileaks, when they found out she conspired with the DNC to beat up on bernie, they hacked and released it. Podesta? hack and release.

why would russia pass info to the Trump campaign and leave a trail? if they had anything they'd release it via wikileaks. taking that meeting was dumb, expecting there's something there or any agreements made by the trump team to russia is equally dumb. i think people want a smoking gun so badly they're not realizing basic simple habits of the espionage game.

lifting sanctions deal

The fact we did exactly the same kind of disinformation/cyber campaign against them in 2011 is what provoked the Russian retaliation
Vladimir Putin was not amused by Hillary Clinton agitating his populace against him during the elections in the wake of the strongmen getting overthrown and executed during the Arab Spring.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-revenge/transcript/

the russian operation in 2016 was 'appropriate retaliation', aimed at Hillary Clinton.



get ur basic logic out of here, this is fenders thread now

This post was edited by Goomshill on Aug 7 2018 12:42pm