Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Because it could well be seen as collusion with the illegal actions of a foreign state in order to win an election, that's why.
If you can't see why that would be a problem I suggest you replace Trump with Corbyn. Let's say there were a number of stories whereby Russia (or a state you like less, let's say Germany) had committed a cyberattack against the Conservative Party and then asked to meet Corbyn's allies because they have damaging information that could help them win the election would you really be saying 'so what'?
The only reason it wouldn't literally be traitorous is because apparently you need to be in a state of war with the other party. It's complicity in the attack against the country by a foreign power.
|
So who created and wrongdoing or damaging information? The Democrats, and nobody else.
Quote:
Mrs Clinton's aide Huma Abedin, usually known for her unflinching loyalty, was blunt in her criticism of her boss over a Clinton Foundation summit in Morocco.
...
The implication from the leaked emails is that a $12m donation from the king of Morocco was dependent on Mrs Clinton attending the summit.
|
Quote:
|
As the emails show, the ties that Mr Miliband and Mr Bisogniero, as well as other foreign officials, have with Clinton advisors run deep.
|
No foreign involvement there.
Many organisations and individuals get hacking attempts and many of them from the UK and from elsewhere outside Russia.
Still mystified by what actually is meant to have influenced anything, other than possibly revealing the truth? What was it? Can anybody point out what is ultimately meant to have swung anything?
Trump had to first win the Republican selection process, so what evidence is there of interference in that?