Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help M*Modal Nuance New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Games Faith Board Prayer Requests Health Issues


ADVERTISEMENT



Politics

Depends - sm

Posted: Jul 18th, 2018 - 4:37 pm In Reply to: So declining a comment means exactly - what?

"It appears Robert Mueller has also relied on Crowdstrike’s analysis the Russians hacked the DNC server because his spox declined to comment."

Do you remember after Charlottesville and during the election when people said Trump didn't disavow white supremacists and KKK members strongly or quickly enough?

In that case, declining to comment to the satisfaction of the person asking meant the media could label Trump a racist.

That's a specific example. A more general example: It's so easy to just answer the question, the only reason not to answer is that you don't want to go on record saying something untrue or unpopular.

In this case, if he answered "Yes, the servers were inspected by the FBI." That gets him in trouble because it's new information that goes against the testimony given previously by government officials. Someone is lying.

If he answered, "No, they weren't inspected by law enforcement." That opens up another can of worms. The Mueller investigation probably doesn't want to admit that they relied on a team paid for by the campaign to do their analysis. That would indicate a huge amount of bias. That would also call into question any findings.

Declining to answer is still an answer. Mueller's spokesperson chose not to add anything to what is currently known about the DNC server investigation. That leaves us (at the very least) where we were before the interview. Law enforcement didn't inspect the server and anything found on the server is subject to bias due to the fact the campaign paid for the investigation.

To head off the further question of what bias means exactly...

Remember how OJ was considered innocent because the defense was able to prove that one of the lead investigators had used the N-word in the past and was therefore biased against OJ because of his race? That's why it's important to remove bias or the appearance of bias in an investigation.

Is there anything else I can help you understand? :)

ADVERTISEMENT


Post A Reply Reply By Email Options


Complete Discussion Below: ( marks the location of current message within thread)