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.
Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.
Glad I could help. You're welcome.
I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.Yeah, I re-posted the answer to your question; you said nobody answered it.
Bottom line; what happened (phishing or hacking) is a crime. Roger Stone, one of Trump's higher up advisors, was aware of the crime and knew what was coming. He didn't alert the DNC or Podesta or whomever that they were about to be targeted by hackers. Since the outcome benefitted your side...you're okay with it. Is that pretty much the case? Please try not to involved the Clintons, Obama, or anyone else in your answer for a change.
He had no duty to alert anyone.
.
And that is how we "Make America Great Again"? be on the side of criminals if it benefits you?
You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?
Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.
.
And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.
You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.
Two Questions:
1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?
1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.
2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.
.
Your scenario said the Trump associate spoke to the Russian BEFORE the interference.Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.
Glad I could help. You're welcome.
So where's the conspiracy if you only take advantage of the interference after it occurs?
.
People can say who they want, it's not interference.Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.
Glad I could help. You're welcome.
So where's the conspiracy if you only take advantage of the interference after it occurs? And were's your demands to lock up the dear leader for interfering in the Israeli, Brexit and French elections? He actually used US taxpayer money to try to effect the elections in Israel. But would our news media also be guilty for publicizing the hacked emails, they furthered the Russian interest more than anyone.
.
If a burglar steals something, and then sells it to a fence who knows the items are stolen, the fence is guilty of receiving stolen goods.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...
To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.
Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.
So what law was broken, quote the law.
.
Anyone who participates in colluding with the Russians is guilty of conspiracy and a party to the illegal hacking of the DNC.
You're welcome.
Next!
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
You're welcome!
I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.He had no duty to alert anyone.
.
And that is how we "Make America Great Again"? be on the side of criminals if it benefits you?
You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?
Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.
.
And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.
You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.
Two Questions:
1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?
1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.
2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.
.
1. Its not an assumption.
2. Because he didn't tell Roger to tell whomever was going to put Podesta in the barrel to knock it off....
Just another question to see if there if you have a moral compass.
Would you at least agree that, in the broadest sense of the word, working with hackers as Mr. Stone was doing is tantamount to
A) Cheating
B) Improper
C) Unamerican
Your scenario said the Trump associate spoke to the Russian BEFORE the interference.Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.
Glad I could help. You're welcome.
So where's the conspiracy if you only take advantage of the interference after it occurs?
.
Your own words: "it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that."
Conspiracy.
You're welcome.
Sure I guess... I don't know that story but if Ted talked to the Russians then the Russians proceeded with illegal activity to influence an election with his help then he should have been locked upIn your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our governmentI've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
You mean like ted kennedy....who went to the actual Soviet Union and told them he wanted to help them defeat Reagan...you mean like that?
People can say who they want, it's not interference.Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.
Glad I could help. You're welcome.
So where's the conspiracy if you only take advantage of the interference after it occurs? And were's your demands to lock up the dear leader for interfering in the Israeli, Brexit and French elections? He actually used US taxpayer money to try to effect the elections in Israel. But would our news media also be guilty for publicizing the hacked emails, they furthered the Russian interest more than anyone.
.
Idk what you're talking about comey confirmed he was investigating collusion months ago. Don't follow current events?Uhhhhh... no I'm going to go with the $$$What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"Yea obviously he wouldn't lift them right now...
But you never know with Trump
Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.
.
Ever thought Putin just might of hated the bitch and thought like I did that anyone would be better? And if my memory serves even you dear leader in his first presidential bid made some somewhat positive comments about our adversaries, including Russia and Iran in an attempt to build goodwill. I guess you only see it as bad when Trump does it.
.
Also I don't care why Donnie did it, he colluded against this country with a foreign power. The GOP needs to wake up.
Yet Comey told Trump himself and two senators that he is not being investigated. How do you square that with what you're saying?
.
Idk what you're talking about comey confirmed he was investigating collusion months ago. Don't follow current events?Uhhhhh... no I'm going to go with the $$$What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.
.
Ever thought Putin just might of hated the bitch and thought like I did that anyone would be better? And if my memory serves even you dear leader in his first presidential bid made some somewhat positive comments about our adversaries, including Russia and Iran in an attempt to build goodwill. I guess you only see it as bad when Trump does it.
.
Also I don't care why Donnie did it, he colluded against this country with a foreign power. The GOP needs to wake up.
Yet Comey told Trump himself and two senators that he is not being investigated. How do you square that with what you're saying?
.
No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.And that is how we "Make America Great Again"? be on the side of criminals if it benefits you?
You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?
Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.
.
And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.
You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.
Two Questions:
1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?
1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.
2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.
.
1. Its not an assumption.
2. Because he didn't tell Roger to tell whomever was going to put Podesta in the barrel to knock it off....
Just another question to see if there if you have a moral compass.
Would you at least agree that, in the broadest sense of the word, working with hackers as Mr. Stone was doing is tantamount to
A) Cheating
B) Improper
C) Unamerican
Assuming that was a public tweet, wouldn't that in effect be alerting Podesta that something was coming? I thought you said he didn't alert anyone.
And no, I wouldn't agree that a simple communication would constitute working with anyone, you have no idea what was in the communication other than he was informed that more was coming and it concerned Podesta, so none of your options would apply.
.
Journalists, and Hollywood- it's the real world, fake newser. There's media all around the world and then there's RW BS in the USA and a few Murdoch outlets. Fox, Rush,Heritage etc etc etc are all on the greedy idiot billionaires' payroll. How's the lock her up BS coming? 25 years of horseshytte...nothing except in dupeworld.I left the classified info at the office. Dems don't do fake investigations, as we don't have a propaganda machine, dupe. This is the FBI, not one of your fake GOP congressional witch hunts, for GOP dupes ONLY.
No propaganda machine, shitstain?
MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, PBS, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Hollywood... what do you call them?
No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?
Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.
.
And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.
You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.
Two Questions:
1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?
1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.
2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.
.
1. Its not an assumption.
2. Because he didn't tell Roger to tell whomever was going to put Podesta in the barrel to knock it off....
Just another question to see if there if you have a moral compass.
Would you at least agree that, in the broadest sense of the word, working with hackers as Mr. Stone was doing is tantamount to
A) Cheating
B) Improper
C) Unamerican
Assuming that was a public tweet, wouldn't that in effect be alerting Podesta that something was coming? I thought you said he didn't alert anyone.
And no, I wouldn't agree that a simple communication would constitute working with anyone, you have no idea what was in the communication other than he was informed that more was coming and it concerned Podesta, so none of your options would apply.
.
Again, why would someone like Roger Stone have any opinion about an obscure Russian hacker???? Seems like a pretty strange thing for him to be worried about.
How does one of the President’s Men (to introduce the Nixonian parlance because that seems to be where we’re going) know six months ahead of the fact that John Podesta is going to be hacked?
Well, Roger Stone knew full well that John Podesta was going to be hacked six weeks before Guccifer released the e-mails.
He didn't alert the DNC or Podesta or whomever that they were about to be targeted by hackers.
No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.
Nothing like the RW propaganda machine- personal megaphones for Murdoch, Adelson Examiner, Moonie Times, Koch Heritage BS Org.Journalists, and Hollywood- it's the real world, fake newser. There's media all around the world and then there's RW BS in the USA and a few Murdoch outlets. Fox, Rush,Heritage etc etc etc are all on the greedy idiot billionaires' payroll. How's the lock her up BS coming? 25 years of horseshytte...nothing except in dupeworld.I left the classified info at the office. Dems don't do fake investigations, as we don't have a propaganda machine, dupe. This is the FBI, not one of your fake GOP congressional witch hunts, for GOP dupes ONLY.
No propaganda machine, shitstain?
MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, PBS, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Hollywood... what do you call them?
You sound like the poor leftist media don't have anyone behind them with the money.
All those I listed above are the megaphone of Democrat party. Are you saying that Fox is bigger than them, or Rush? And since when the Heritage is the news organisation?
I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.
Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.
Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.
Any takers?
.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Try to spin that as benign - colluding with a foreign power interfere in our democratic institutions is an act of treason.
Can that be alleged? Yep. Can it be proved is the question.
Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?Idk what you're talking about comey confirmed he was investigating collusion months ago. Don't follow current events?Uhhhhh... no I'm going to go with the $$$What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"
Ever thought Putin just might of hated the bitch and thought like I did that anyone would be better? And if my memory serves even you dear leader in his first presidential bid made some somewhat positive comments about our adversaries, including Russia and Iran in an attempt to build goodwill. I guess you only see it as bad when Trump does it.
.
Also I don't care why Donnie did it, he colluded against this country with a foreign power. The GOP needs to wake up.
Yet Comey told Trump himself and two senators that he is not being investigated. How do you square that with what you're saying?
.
Feinstein and Grassley confirmed just "this week" that Comey said Trump was not a target of the investigation and Clapper just testified "this week" that he has seen no evidence of collusion. So I guess it's you that isn't following "current events".
.
