a reply to: allsee4eye
I respect your opinion, but I doubt that you and I would be able to come to a fair consensus of the definition of "interfering in the election" so Im
not attempting to debate you, or sway you from your opinion, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
Considering the IC believes the Russian government hacked the DNC in June 2016 to help Trump win the election,
IF the Russians did the hack, it was certainly unlawful, but revealing the emails does not count as interfering as far as Im concerned. It was not the
act of being hacked, but the content and information brought in to the public eye that changed the tide of the election.
What did the email leak reveal?
The Emails werent just rumors and lies, They were real Emails, and they revealed the true nature of Hillary and other members of the DNC.
Is it interfering because the DNC wasnt able to hide their true personalities? Was it interfering because the illegal act of hacking exposed some
evidence of (alleged) Crimes on behalf of the DNC?
Dont people want transparent politicians? Dont they want people who are honest and genuine and not putting on an act for the voters, simply to get
elected? Dont people want to know WHO they are really voting for?
Id like to shake the hand of whoever did the hacks, because the Clintons have taken advantage of US Citizens for quite some time, and the leak gave us
plenty of evidence as to the character of these politicians.
Ask yourself, "How were they able to get hacked in the first place?"
Answer: Hillary Clinton was storing CLASSIFIED emails concerning matters of National Security on an unsecured server!
Thats something that first year college students don't even do, for fear of losing term papers and other work!
Is it illegal to store such sensitive information on an unsecured server? Honestly, i dont know that it is, because im not familiar with those laws.
Ive heard that it is, but without seeing the State or Federal Statute for myself, i cant argue that point.(If anyone knows for certain, please let me
I am certain that it is a breach of protocol though, with minimum consequences of a reprimand.
As a real world example, lets say I steal $100,000 from somewhere. Then you steal it from me just to turn it into the police, then I get arrested, go
to jail etc.
I doubt a, "he interfered with my clean getaway of a crime, therefore I should be acquitted" argument will fly too far in court. I doubt there would
be protests in the streets demanding my freedom. In the end I would be exposed for being what I was, even though I was exposed as the result of an
Im also curious, has there been any statements from Hillary voters who changed their mind and their vote(on account of the email leaks), only to
regret it when Russia was named as a suspect?
Lets say this was just some 40 year old bum, living in his moms basement who did the hack. Would that change the atmosphere? Obviously, hacking is
illegal, and he would surely face trial, but would he also be charged with "interfering" in our election? Or just the hacking?
Well, those are my reasons for disqualifying the DNC hack as "interfering".
I dont wish to debate politics or policies, but im more than willing to listen to, and discuss examples with people who are on the opposite side of
Ive avoided all things political the past couple months because people have gotten too defensive/offensive. Theres WAY TOO MUCH of the, "this is what
i think, and if you think anything different YOURE STUPID!!!" Attitudes EVERYWHERE! Not just on Internet forums either.
As respectable citizens, we abstain from prejudice against people based on race, religion and sex. But recently, its perfectly acceptable to be
prejudiced against people who align themselves with a different political party or politicians. Why is that? Is it not the same?
Again, Im more than willing to hear the other side this argument, and respect your thoughts, opinions, and research, and most of all your character.