Fox news must've had a power outage.

[Medic007]

This is inaccurate. The statement said that they were uanable to confirm that the meddling affected the outcome of the election. That is different than saying that it did not affect the outcome.

Well I guess you can continue to count on whatever source tells you that. I'll stick with what Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein announced:

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

Since none of the indictments to date have alleged the outcome of the election was affected, I used "so far" in my post. That specifically acknowledges the fact that the investigation is ongoing and that fact may change later with additional information.

http://time.com/5338451/rod-rosenstein-russian-indictment-transcript/

 

[Been Jammin]

It's been determined so far that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome.

This is not the same as...

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

I get that you threw in the "so far", but it still reads like you are saying "up to this point, it has been determined that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome".

No official announcement has been made one way or the other. To be determined (maybe).

 

[Medic007]

No official announcement has been made one way or the other. To be determined (maybe).

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change the fact that Rosenstein (pretty official guy) said:

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

So yes, I'm saying "up to this point, it has been determined that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome".

I suppose we can argue all day, but you're not going to convince me that Rosenstein said those words if he didn't mean them, and unless you can post a recent something from an official like Rosenstein that alleges that Russian meddling affected the election, I'm taking his announcement at face value.

And I'm probably not going to convince you that was an official announcement that the activity in the indictments didn't affect the election and that the other announcements thus far have indicated the exact same thing.

 

[Been Jammin]

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change the fact that Rosenstein (pretty official guy) said:

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

So yes, I'm saying "up to this point, it has been determined that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome".

.

I don't think you understand the meaning of his words. Either that, or you and I understand them differently.

Rosenstein said that the indictments contain no allegation that the conspiracy affected the election. That does not mean that "it has been determined that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome".

That means that nothing has been determined one way or another.

He was clarifying that....
A). There was a conspiracy that was attempting to meddle in the election.
-and-
B). The indictments do not state that the conspirators were successful in their goal.

Nothing has been determined. No one has formally announced that the conspirators successfully manipulated the election results. No one has formally announced that the conspirators failed to manipulate the election results.

allegation
[al-i-gey-shuh n]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.

Rosenstein is simply clarifying that the parties indicted are not being accused of affecting the results of the election. They are being accused of conspiracy to attempt to affect the results of the election.

 

[Medic007]

I don't think you understand the meaning of his words. Either that, or you and I understand them differently.

Rosenstein said that the indictments contain no allegation that the conspiracy affected the election. That does not mean that "it has been determined that Russian meddling didn't affect the outcome".

That means that nothing has been determined one way or another.

He was clarifying that....
A). There was a conspiracy that was attempting to meddle in the election.
-and-
B). The indictments do not state that the conspirators were successful in their goal.

Nothing has been determined. No one has formally announced that the conspirators successfully manipulated the election results. No one has formally announced that the conspirators failed to manipulate the election results.

allegation
[al-i-gey-shuh n]
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove.

Rosenstein is simply clarifying that the parties indicted are not being accused of affecting the results of the election. They are being accused of conspiracy to attempt to affect the results of the election.

So, let's say that an additional 50 indictments are announced and there will be no more. In each announcement, it's stated that there's no allegation that the results of the election were affected. Will we be safe to assume that the elections weren't affected at that point? Are we supposed to wait for a super announcement of some sort?

I don't have any issues comprehending his language. It isn't subtle. But thanks for your concern nonetheless. It seems that you want the meddling to have affected the outcome. That probably fits nicely with the narrative you accept as fact. That's cool by me. As I said, it's clear we aren't going to convince each other.

 

[Been Jammin]

Will we be safe to assume that the elections weren't affected at that point?

Why should we assume anything? If there is an official announcement that the meddling did affect the outcome, are you going to buy it, or roll your eyes and think "yeah right"?

I think it is completely realistic (and likely) that we never know one way or the other. I mean, how can the answer possibly be determined?

It seems that you want the meddling to have affected the outcome. That probably fits nicely with the narrative you accept as fact.

What makes you think I have accepted any particular narrative as fact? Have I stated my personal narrative one way or the other? If so, please quote said post.

I will say this...

Fact: Russian operatives aggressively attempted to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump.

I don't know if they were successful. I don't know that they were not successful. I don't know if we will ever know the answer.

 

[Medic007]

Why should we assume anything? If there is an official announcement that the meddling did affect the outcome, are you going to buy it, or roll your eyes and think "yeah right"?

I think it is completely realistic (and likely) that we never know one way or the other. I mean, how can the answer possibly be determined?



What makes you think I have accepted any particular narrative as fact? Have I stated my personal narrative one way or the other? If so, please quote said post.

I will say this...

Fact: Russian operatives aggressively attempted to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump.

I don't know if they were successful. I don't know that they were not successful. I don't know if we will ever know the answer.

Do you think Russia affected the outcome of the election? If so, what specific things do you think affected the outcome?