Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Their tiny little minds cannot wrap themselves around the concept of "arm's length third party". The concept is far too complicated for right wing brains. That Hillary never spoke to anyone from the research firm, and had no idea who they hired, and Steele didn't now who the client was.
They see no difference between the Steele Dossier and the Trump Tower meeting.
I don’t want our president owing Russia. It’s amazing how many of you scum think that’s a good idea. Russia is so nice.I'm just doing what the media didn't do...telling you the whole story but I guess the truth is wasted on a TDS jackass like you....Yes honest trump.Trump said he would turn it over to the FBI if it were evident that the info was gained illegally...but of course the hate Trump brigade isn't telling you that....
The hate Trump media is really breaking down fast....
I don’t want our president owing Russia. It’s amazing how many of you scum think that’s a good idea. Russia is so nice.
No foreign country. Bad enough our politicians are owned by the wealthy.I don’t want our president owing Russia. It’s amazing how many of you scum think that’s a good idea. Russia is so nice.
How about the Ukraine?
No foreign country. Bad enough our politicians are owned by the wealthy.How about the Ukraine?I don’t want our president owing Russia. It’s amazing how many of you scum think that’s a good idea. Russia is so nice.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]No, it is not against the law, jackass.It's against the law.Wonder why this got anyone upset? Who wouldn't want to know if Americans running for office is corrupt, rapist, killers?
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Many Democrats reacted with outrage. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a 2020 candidate for president, tweeted in response: "It's time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings."
.
That's why people are so upset about it. Add to that real Americans don't want any foreign influence on our elections.
Real Americans don't break the law and don't use foreign nations to win elections.
Childishly calling me a name isn't going to make you less wrong.
It's against the law. Just because you're too stupid and lazy to do the research to find out the law doesn't mean you aren't wrong.
I admit it's fun to make a total fool of you to all of cyberspace and it's hilarious that you're too lazy to do a simple search before you post and make a total fool of yourself but aren't you getting tired of me making a fool of you? Or are you a masochist?
Whatever it is, thanks for the opportunity to have fun making a total fool of you. You really should make it a challenge. This is just way too easy.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]The law you cited isn't even tangentially related to the subject of this thread you feeble-minded, TDS afflicted, brainwashed moron.No, it is not against the law, jackass.It's against the law.Wonder why this got anyone upset? Who wouldn't want to know if Americans running for office is corrupt, rapist, killers?
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Many Democrats reacted with outrage. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a 2020 candidate for president, tweeted in response: "It's time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings."
.
That's why people are so upset about it. Add to that real Americans don't want any foreign influence on our elections.
Real Americans don't break the law and don't use foreign nations to win elections.
Childishly calling me a name isn't going to make you less wrong.
It's against the law. Just because you're too stupid and lazy to do the research to find out the law doesn't mean you aren't wrong.
I admit it's fun to make a total fool of you to all of cyberspace and it's hilarious that you're too lazy to do a simple search before you post and make a total fool of yourself but aren't you getting tired of me making a fool of you? Or are you a masochist?
Whatever it is, thanks for the opportunity to have fun making a total fool of you. You really should make it a challenge. This is just way too easy.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Bullshit. It is not against the law to listen, you fucking moron.No, it is not against the law, jackass.It's against the law.Wonder why this got anyone upset? Who wouldn't want to know if Americans running for office is corrupt, rapist, killers?
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Many Democrats reacted with outrage. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a 2020 candidate for president, tweeted in response: "It's time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings."
.
That's why people are so upset about it. Add to that real Americans don't want any foreign influence on our elections.
Real Americans don't break the law and don't use foreign nations to win elections.
Childishly calling me a name isn't going to make you less wrong.
It's against the law. Just because you're too stupid and lazy to do the research to find out the law doesn't mean you aren't wrong.
I admit it's fun to make a total fool of you to all of cyberspace and it's hilarious that you're too lazy to do a simple search before you post and make a total fool of yourself but aren't you getting tired of me making a fool of you? Or are you a masochist?
Whatever it is, thanks for the opportunity to have fun making a total fool of you. You really should make it a challenge. This is just way too easy.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Bullshit. It is not against the law to listen, you fucking moron.No, it is not against the law, jackass.It's against the law.Wonder why this got anyone upset? Who wouldn't want to know if Americans running for office is corrupt, rapist, killers?
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Trump says he would 'want to hear' dirt on 2020 rivals from foreign governments, suggests he wouldn't contact FBI
Many Democrats reacted with outrage. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., a 2020 candidate for president, tweeted in response: "It's time for Congress to begin impeachment hearings."
.
That's why people are so upset about it. Add to that real Americans don't want any foreign influence on our elections.
Real Americans don't break the law and don't use foreign nations to win elections.
Childishly calling me a name isn't going to make you less wrong.
It's against the law. Just because you're too stupid and lazy to do the research to find out the law doesn't mean you aren't wrong.
I admit it's fun to make a total fool of you to all of cyberspace and it's hilarious that you're too lazy to do a simple search before you post and make a total fool of yourself but aren't you getting tired of me making a fool of you? Or are you a masochist?
Whatever it is, thanks for the opportunity to have fun making a total fool of you. You really should make it a challenge. This is just way too easy.
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
The random law you cited is not even tangentially related to the subject, moron.
Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.
Please spare us the details of Hillary's money laundering operation to pay off espionage agents working for the Russian government.Actually, it's not illegal, and paying foreigners for help with your campaign is illegal, you fucking moron.It's against the law.
That's why people are so upset about it. Add to that real Americans don't want any foreign influence on our elections.
Real Americans don't break the law and don't use foreign nations to win elections.
Do you realize Hillary and the DNC paid for the foreign steel dossier for dirt on Trump?
Many politicians use operation research companies to get dirt on each other.
How do politicians gather opposition research on other candidates?
Do you understand that in paying for research it is a distinction with a difference? Paying for opposition research is legal. Getting stolen information given to you by a foreign adversary is not.
It absolutely is illegal for a political candidate to accept ANYTHING of value from a foreign government in an election campaign.
It is not illegal to hire foreign nationals to work on your campaign, but it is illegal to hire foreign government officials to work on your campaign. The Clinton campaign did neither. The Clinton Campaign instructed their lawyers to obtain opposition research. The lawyers contacted Fusion GPS and contracted with them to provide OR on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS had previously had a similar contract from representatives of a Republican candidate, and had hired Christopher Steele to do the work, but the contract was terminated when Trump secured the Republican nomination. Fusion contracted with Steele to finish the research on Trump.
At no time did Hillary Clinton meet with Fusion GPS or Christopher Steele. All payments to Steele were made by Fusion GPS, and all payments to Fusion GPS were made by the law firm on behalf of their anonymous client.
Trump Jr. met with officials from the Russian government in Trump Tower in the hopes of being handed Russian government documents which implicated Hillary Clinton in crimes, which his father could then exploit for political gain. That's illegal.
And then Trump Jr. lied about this to Congress. That's illegal too. Why didn't the Justice Department charge Trump Jr. with these crimes? Enquiring minds want to know.
The election commission has already ruled that information is not considered "a thing of value" for the purposes of election law.
You're totally full of shit, as always.
I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.First. I would like a source to back up these claims. Secondly. Their is an insane difference, between hiring a law firm to do opposition research. Contracts that stipulate that the law firm do their do diligence on checking the sources. The difference being that the law firm NOT the incumbent is responsible for the information. And the incumbent can as such not be compromised. Thirdly you just tried to compare Australia with the Taliban and Russia..... you don't see a problem with that?You mean like Britain, Australia, Ukraine, and Italian officials have just done outing Obama and Hillary for doing this?Well let's play out the scenario to illustrate one of the reasons you shouldn't. You take the information from the talliban or Russia for that matter and you get elected. After you are in office, someone from the talliban, or Russia gets into contact and tells you. "Give me this consession, or I blow the lid on the help I gave you and your willingness to accept it". They call it being compromised and it's not a good thing.I am going to have to read the entire article , I thought it was just Trump not telling the FBI if someone told him.
.
Maybe that pop up and noisy ad should stay away and allow any of us to read it all.
Well if the laws say Trump has to tell the FBI about his contacts with foreign officials he should or he should push to change the laws. Can't go to amateur politician jail.
Honestly while I might investigate it on my own to prove the validity, I'd probably take information from the Taliban on my rivals......then I'd wonder why the Taliban or whatever scum were helping me. I'd take it though.
You left one out.
Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.
trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.
You seem to have me confused with someone who likes politicians. I don’t.No foreign country. Bad enough our politicians are owned by the wealthy.How about the Ukraine?I don’t want our president owing Russia. It’s amazing how many of you scum think that’s a good idea. Russia is so nice.
You should do a little googling about your front runner Biden and Ukraine.
Well unless you are arguing that Hilary is a foreign national I think the difference speaks for itself.Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.
Honest question. How do you reconcile that law and Hillary paying for the Steele dossier?
Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... Fucking hypocrites..I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.First. I would like a source to back up these claims. Secondly. Their is an insane difference, between hiring a law firm to do opposition research. Contracts that stipulate that the law firm do their do diligence on checking the sources. The difference being that the law firm NOT the incumbent is responsible for the information. And the incumbent can as such not be compromised. Thirdly you just tried to compare Australia with the Taliban and Russia..... you don't see a problem with that?You mean like Britain, Australia, Ukraine, and Italian officials have just done outing Obama and Hillary for doing this?Well let's play out the scenario to illustrate one of the reasons you shouldn't. You take the information from the talliban or Russia for that matter and you get elected. After you are in office, someone from the talliban, or Russia gets into contact and tells you. "Give me this consession, or I blow the lid on the help I gave you and your willingness to accept it". They call it being compromised and it's not a good thing.Maybe that pop up and noisy ad should stay away and allow any of us to read it all.
Well if the laws say Trump has to tell the FBI about his contacts with foreign officials he should or he should push to change the laws. Can't go to amateur politician jail.
Honestly while I might investigate it on my own to prove the validity, I'd probably take information from the Taliban on my rivals......then I'd wonder why the Taliban or whatever scum were helping me. I'd take it though.
You left one out.
Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.
trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.
Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... Fucking hypocrites..I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.First. I would like a source to back up these claims. Secondly. Their is an insane difference, between hiring a law firm to do opposition research. Contracts that stipulate that the law firm do their do diligence on checking the sources. The difference being that the law firm NOT the incumbent is responsible for the information. And the incumbent can as such not be compromised. Thirdly you just tried to compare Australia with the Taliban and Russia..... you don't see a problem with that?You mean like Britain, Australia, Ukraine, and Italian officials have just done outing Obama and Hillary for doing this?Well let's play out the scenario to illustrate one of the reasons you shouldn't. You take the information from the talliban or Russia for that matter and you get elected. After you are in office, someone from the talliban, or Russia gets into contact and tells you. "Give me this consession, or I blow the lid on the help I gave you and your willingness to accept it". They call it being compromised and it's not a good thing.
You left one out.
Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.
trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.
?? She paid a foreign national (Steele) for information (disinformation?) from foreign nationals (Russians)Well unless you are arguing that Hilary is a foreign national I think the difference speaks for itself.Honest question. How do you reconcile that law and Hillary paying for the Steele dossier?Thats a good lemming. Keep denying reality.
It's money laundering.Please spare us the details of Hillary's money laundering operation to pay off espionage agents working for the Russian government.Actually, it's not illegal, and paying foreigners for help with your campaign is illegal, you fucking moron.Do you realize Hillary and the DNC paid for the foreign steel dossier for dirt on Trump?
Many politicians use operation research companies to get dirt on each other.
How do politicians gather opposition research on other candidates?
Do you understand that in paying for research it is a distinction with a difference? Paying for opposition research is legal. Getting stolen information given to you by a foreign adversary is not.
It absolutely is illegal for a political candidate to accept ANYTHING of value from a foreign government in an election campaign.
It is not illegal to hire foreign nationals to work on your campaign, but it is illegal to hire foreign government officials to work on your campaign. The Clinton campaign did neither. The Clinton Campaign instructed their lawyers to obtain opposition research. The lawyers contacted Fusion GPS and contracted with them to provide OR on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS had previously had a similar contract from representatives of a Republican candidate, and had hired Christopher Steele to do the work, but the contract was terminated when Trump secured the Republican nomination. Fusion contracted with Steele to finish the research on Trump.
At no time did Hillary Clinton meet with Fusion GPS or Christopher Steele. All payments to Steele were made by Fusion GPS, and all payments to Fusion GPS were made by the law firm on behalf of their anonymous client.
Trump Jr. met with officials from the Russian government in Trump Tower in the hopes of being handed Russian government documents which implicated Hillary Clinton in crimes, which his father could then exploit for political gain. That's illegal.
And then Trump Jr. lied about this to Congress. That's illegal too. Why didn't the Justice Department charge Trump Jr. with these crimes? Enquiring minds want to know.
The election commission has already ruled that information is not considered "a thing of value" for the purposes of election law.
You're totally full of shit, as always.
You ignorant ass. That's not "money laundering", that's a "third party arm's length transaction". Something your feeble, uneducated mind cannot wrap itself around. Not surprising that someone as gullible as you would vote for Trump. He tells you what he wants you to think and you just parrot his lies. There no critical thinking skills or fact checking required on your part. He'll even have Breitbart and FOX News repeat it for you to make it sound legit, but they'll say anything Trump tells them to, just like you.
