CDZ Best of the Board

[Nosmo King]

Do you think seeking and accepting information from a foreign source concerning a political opponent is legal? Ethical? Dangerous? Would you support any politician who did that?

I am not sure about the legalities, but I would answer "yes" to the rest of your questions. How about you?

Well, I know that it is illegal. I disageee and believe it is ynethical, and, no I could not support a politician who did that.

 

[jwoodie]

Well, I know that it is illegal. I disageee and believe it is ynethical, and, no I could not support a politician who did that.

Like Hillary?

 

[Nosmo King]

Well, I know that it is illegal. I disageee and believe it is ynethical, and, no I could not support a politician who did that.

Like Hillary?

Sure. She is not immune from the law either. What do you think her punishment should be should she be found guilty? What proof of guilt are you prepared to present?

 

[jwoodie]

Well, I know that it is illegal. I disageee and believe it is ynethical, and, no I could not support a politician who did that.

Like Hillary?

Sure. She is not immune from the law either. What do you think her punishment should be should she be found guilty? What proof of guilt are you prepared to present?

Since you are knowledgeable about its illegality, you will have to advise me as to the range of punishment prescribed by law. (Would you include willful destruction of subpoenaed evidence as a separate offense?)

As to proof, I would assume the Steele dossier would be Exhibit 1. But I expect more to be forthcoming after a real investigation is completed.

What do you think her punishment should be?

 

[Nosmo King]

Well, I know that it is illegal. I disageee and believe it is ynethical, and, no I could not support a politician who did that.

Like Hillary?

Sure. She is not immune from the law either. What do you think her punishment should be should she be found guilty? What proof of guilt are you prepared to present?

Since you are knowledgeable about its illegality, you will have to advise me as to the range of punishment prescribed by law. (Would you include willful destruction of subpoenaed evidence as a separate offense?)

As to proof, I would assume the Steele dossier would be Exhibit 1. But I expect more to be forthcoming after a real investigation is completed.

What do you think her punishment should be?

Ellen Weintraub, Commissioner of the FEC laid out the law in this tweet yesterday:

chairwoman

I don't think the Steele dossier is comparable to accepting stolen, hacked and purloined information from a forieyadversary. Every campaign conducts opposition research. The Steele dossier was commissioned work. Steele was hired to produce the research. He did not steal Trump information, he independently conducted an investigation. The Russians, on the other hand, hacked into the DNC computer network (a break in) and stole information. It's comparable to burglars breaking into the DNC headquarters and stealing files from filing cabinets, just like 1972 at the Watergate complex.

As to punishment, we must agree on these premises:

First, there are sentencing guidelines that must be adhered to.

And second, we must agree that suspects are guilty until proven innocent.

And finally, a President putting his thumb on the scale and calling for his opponent to be jailed is unconscionable. Nixon took heat for calling for the conviction of Charles Manson during his trial. Trump leads "Lock her up!" chants at his rallies.

My, how times and lawfulness have changed.

 

[jwoodie]

a President putting his thumb on the scale and calling for his opponent to be jailed is unconscionable.

But a President putting his thumb on the scale and whitewashing a serious crime by his Secretary of State is not? I consider actions to be more important than words.

Seems to me like selective unconsionability.

 

[Nosmo King]

a President putting his thumb on the scale and calling for his opponent to be jailed is unconscionable.

But a President putting his thumb on the scale and whitewashing a serious crime by his Secretary of State is not? I consider actions to be more important than words.

Seems to me like selective unconsionability.

Is "whataboutism" a defense or a rationale?

With a compliant Attorney General and a penchant for retribution, why has'nt Trump prosecuted and jailed his political opponents?

 

[jwoodie]

Is "whataboutism" a defense or a rationale?

With a compliant Attorney General and a penchant for retribution, why has'nt Trump prosecuted and jailed his political opponents?

Is "unconscionable" a crime or just your outrage?

Being a "political opponent" is not a crime.

 

[Nosmo King]

Is "whataboutism" a defense or a rationale?

With a compliant Attorney General and a penchant for retribution, why has'nt Trump prosecuted and jailed his political opponents?

Is "unconscionable" a crime or just your outrage?

Being a "political opponent" is not a crime.

Seeking, accepting and conspiring to collect information on political opponents in and election happens to be a federal crime.

How can it be excused? Defended? Accepted as normal?

 

[jwoodie]

Seeking, accepting and conspiring to collect information on political opponents in and election happens to be a federal crime.

Who did this, besides Hillary and the DNC? Please be specific as to who and what they did, and when they did it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Seeking, accepting and conspiring to collect information on political opponents in and election happens to be a federal crime.

Who did this, besides Hillary and the DNC? Please be specific as to who and what they did, and when they did it.

In June of 2016, the Trump campaign met after being contacted by Russian state operatives right there in Trump Rower. 'We have dirt on Hillary' said the Russians to Donald Trump Jr. 'If it's what you say, I love it!' replied Jr. And the law was broken.

Specific enough?

Read more in the Mueller Report.

 

[jwoodie]

In June of 2016, the Trump campaign met after being contacted by Russian state operatives right there in Trump Rower. 'We have dirt on Hillary' said the Russians to Donald Trump Jr. 'If it's what you say, I love it!' replied Jr. And the law was broken.

Specific enough?

Not even close.

 

[Nosmo King]

In June of 2016, the Trump campaign met after being contacted by Russian state operatives right there in Trump Rower. 'We have dirt on Hillary' said the Russians to Donald Trump Jr. 'If it's what you say, I love it!' replied Jr. And the law was broken.

Specific enough?

Not even close.

How so?

 

[Third Party]

Actually., I like right or left as long we disagree. I like discussing(arguing) deep convictions and I learn more from someone different than from someone similar. And, I tend to take both sides depending on the issue.

 

[jwoodie]

In June of 2016, the Trump campaign met after being contacted by Russian state operatives right there in Trump Rower. 'We have dirt on Hillary' said the Russians to Donald Trump Jr. 'If it's what you say, I love it!' replied Jr. And the law was broken.

Specific enough?

Not even close.

How so?

What law was broken? And by whom? President Trump?

 

[edward37]

Most all the liberals are trolls on here. You can never have a real conversation with them. Well I take that back Edward is normal.


.

I'd like to throw my hat into the ring

 

[edward37]

Most all the liberals are trolls on here. You can never have a real conversation with them. Well I take that back Edward is normal.


.

Why thank you bear How nice and on Fathers day

 

[edward37]

Most all the liberals are trolls on here. You can never have a real conversation with them. Well I take that back Edward is normal.


.

Why thank you bear How nice and on Fathers day

Just proof that good words towards some one you disagree with are far stronger than poor words

 

[Darkwind]

conservatives, which Liberal posters on this board do you wish were Conservative due to their particular writing atyle and means of persuasion? Which Liberals would you have fighting your corner?

And Liberals, which Conservative posters do you admire for their forthrightness, clarity and persuasiveness?

That's easy-none in both cases. There is something called the loyal opposition and we need opposing voices to keep us sharp and honest.

What is needed tho is a COMPETENT "loyal opposition".. Anything short of that is either a mob or mass hysteria.. That's WHY -- there are limits to the value of a loyal opposition..

I've always been a bit curious about the term 'loyal opposition' and its context.

This implies that I'll oppose the other team, regardless of the content or context. Which leaves Me to think, if I am against murder as a general policy, then the loyal opposition has no basis in truth, reality, or morality.

 

[Third Party]

conservatives, which Liberal posters on this board do you wish were Conservative due to their particular writing atyle and means of persuasion? Which Liberals would you have fighting your corner?

And Liberals, which Conservative posters do you admire for their forthrightness, clarity and persuasiveness?

That's easy-none in both cases. There is something called the loyal opposition and we need opposing voices to keep us sharp and honest.

What is needed tho is a COMPETENT "loyal opposition".. Anything short of that is either a mob or mass hysteria.. That's WHY -- there are limits to the value of a loyal opposition..

I've always been a bit curious about the term 'loyal opposition' and its context.

This implies that I'll oppose the other team, regardless of the content or context. Which leaves Me to think, if I am against murder as a general policy, then the loyal opposition has no basis in truth, reality, or morality.

Good point, but the loyal opposition drops its objections when national unity is needed, war, easy legal issues like Charles Manson, and Fourth of July Celebrations(see what I did there?).