The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[Billo_Really]

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?

.

Emoluments Clause

Happy?

 

[candycorn]

I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.

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.

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

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.

Then you have these.

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.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

 

[candycorn]

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?

.

So, you have no problem if a campaign welcomes foreign interference in an election instead of standing up for our democracy.

You must be a Trumpette.

I asked a specific legal question, if you don't want to address it move on.

.

I answered it. They knew our country was under cyber attack, & yet said nothing.

I am sure that you think that is a good thing.

Criminal: "I broke into your neighbor's house & stole all this money. I'll buy you a new car."

OKdumbass texas: "Cool"

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

.

Uhhhhh... no I'm going to go with the $$$
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?

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".

.

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

Emoluments Clause

Happy?

Nope, no possible relation to the OP.

Next

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

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.

Then you have these.

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.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO


.

 

[Slade3200]

Uhhhhh... no I'm going to go with the $$$
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?

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".

.

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

Yeah, the speculation gets old, its all part of the garbage reality show that our cable news networks have become. But beside all that noise. There does appear to be enough evidence to warrant suspicion and a pretty heavy duty investigation by the FBI. The Russian hackers are definitely a focus, however, it has been specified that the investigation is looking at Trump associates and their communications with the Russians to see if there is proof of collusion. All it takes is foul play from one Trump associate and proof that Trump had knowledge of it and Mr Prez is in hot water.

I personally think all they have at this point is Flynn telling the Russians to ignore Obamas sanctions, but no link to Trump... although I don't think many people will believe that he didn't direct Flynn to have that conversation. Beyond that I'd be surprised if anything else materializes. There has just been so much dishonesty around the subject it makes them look guilty. And there I go speculating...

 

[candycorn]

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.

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

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.

Then you have these.

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.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO
.

Well, they're investigating to see if there were any crimes committed; that is what investigations do. The way it is going, it looks like there will be a grand jury investigation into it since Trump has a policy of firing those who are investigating him it seems. When/if that happens and you can subpoena folks and hold them in contempt if they are found in contempt....you will see folks starting to flip. Anyone who believes/trusts the President at this point is a moron.

What you've never answered (and I can't blame you because there is no elegant answer) is how/why a guy who has the President's ear even remotely knows and converses with Russian hackers.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

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".

.

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

Yeah, the speculation gets old, its all part of the garbage reality show that our cable news networks have become. But beside all that noise. There does appear to be enough evidence to warrant suspicion and a pretty heavy duty investigation by the FBI. The Russian hackers are definitely a focus, however, it has been specified that the investigation is looking at Trump associates and their communications with the Russians to see if there is proof of collusion. All it takes is foul play from one Trump associate and proof that Trump had knowledge of it and Mr Prez is in hot water.

I personally think all they have at this point is Flynn telling the Russians to ignore Obamas sanctions, but no link to Trump... although I don't think many people will believe that he didn't direct Flynn to have that conversation. Beyond that I'd be surprised if anything else materializes. There has just been so much dishonesty around the subject it makes them look guilty. And there I go speculating...

Well I have a bit more faith in a career military guy, I bet he said no more than Trump planned to review all of maobamas policies and made no promises. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

.

 

[Slade3200]

Idk what you're talking about comey confirmed he was investigating collusion months ago. Don't follow current events?

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".

.

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

Yeah, the speculation gets old, its all part of the garbage reality show that our cable news networks have become. But beside all that noise. There does appear to be enough evidence to warrant suspicion and a pretty heavy duty investigation by the FBI. The Russian hackers are definitely a focus, however, it has been specified that the investigation is looking at Trump associates and their communications with the Russians to see if there is proof of collusion. All it takes is foul play from one Trump associate and proof that Trump had knowledge of it and Mr Prez is in hot water.

I personally think all they have at this point is Flynn telling the Russians to ignore Obamas sanctions, but no link to Trump... although I don't think many people will believe that he didn't direct Flynn to have that conversation. Beyond that I'd be surprised if anything else materializes. There has just been so much dishonesty around the subject it makes them look guilty. And there I go speculating...

Well I have a bit more faith in a career military guy, I bet he said no more than Trump planned to review all of maobamas policies and made no promises. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

.

I have the upmost respect for our military generals, but I lost a lot for Flynn After I saw how he acted during the campaign. The dude is a weasel I wouldn't put anything past him

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Interesting question, and outside of saying "there has to be SOME kind of law being broken", I definitely don't know. So let's try this from the opposite angle:

What if Hillary had won, and all the same accusations were made about her campaign and China?

Certainly the GOP would be all over it, but what would be their reason?
.

Why just China? Hillary has done a lot with Russia. Made a lot of money. Gave them a ton of Uranium.

It was just a theoretical question.
.

 

[Picaro]

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.

So every journalist with confidential sources should be tried for being accomplices to crimes their informants commit?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

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.

Then you have these.

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.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO
.

Well, they're investigating to see if there were any crimes committed; that is what investigations do. The way it is going, it looks like there will be a grand jury investigation into it since Trump has a policy of firing those who are investigating him it seems. When/if that happens and you can subpoena folks and hold them in contempt if they are found in contempt....you will see folks starting to flip. Anyone who believes/trusts the President at this point is a moron.

What you've never answered (and I can't blame you because there is no elegant answer) is how/why a guy who has the President's ear even remotely knows and converses with Russian hackers.

LOL, you're delusional if you think Comey was personally involved in field work, the real investigators, a lead agent and his team, are still on the job and haven't missed a step. McCabe testified to that fact today.

I thought I answered you pretty well on the topic of Stone. But tell me, would appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies be the greater danger to our elections?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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".

.

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

Yeah, the speculation gets old, its all part of the garbage reality show that our cable news networks have become. But beside all that noise. There does appear to be enough evidence to warrant suspicion and a pretty heavy duty investigation by the FBI. The Russian hackers are definitely a focus, however, it has been specified that the investigation is looking at Trump associates and their communications with the Russians to see if there is proof of collusion. All it takes is foul play from one Trump associate and proof that Trump had knowledge of it and Mr Prez is in hot water.

I personally think all they have at this point is Flynn telling the Russians to ignore Obamas sanctions, but no link to Trump... although I don't think many people will believe that he didn't direct Flynn to have that conversation. Beyond that I'd be surprised if anything else materializes. There has just been so much dishonesty around the subject it makes them look guilty. And there I go speculating...

Well I have a bit more faith in a career military guy, I bet he said no more than Trump planned to review all of maobamas policies and made no promises. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

.

I have the upmost respect for our military generals, but I lost a lot for Flynn After I saw how he acted during the campaign. The dude is a weasel I wouldn't put anything past him

I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see proof otherwise.

.

 

[candycorn]

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

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.

Then you have these.

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.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO
.

Well, they're investigating to see if there were any crimes committed; that is what investigations do. The way it is going, it looks like there will be a grand jury investigation into it since Trump has a policy of firing those who are investigating him it seems. When/if that happens and you can subpoena folks and hold them in contempt if they are found in contempt....you will see folks starting to flip. Anyone who believes/trusts the President at this point is a moron.

What you've never answered (and I can't blame you because there is no elegant answer) is how/why a guy who has the President's ear even remotely knows and converses with Russian hackers.

LOL, you're delusional if you think Comey was personally involved in field work, the real investigators, a lead agent and his team, are still on the job and haven't missed a step. McCabe testified to that fact today.

I thought I answered you pretty well on the topic of Stone. But tell me, would appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies be the greater danger to our elections?

.

I'm sure that that is next; the supposed hack (why hack when you can just make stuff up????). And it just becomes more and more murky a process. Thanks Donald.

 

[Claudette]

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?

.

That's easy. They broke no law at all.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

.

Seeing as nothing crazy was released in said emails Hillary's evilness is obviously not the motive. The more likely motive is that Putin wanted someone in office who would get rid of Obama placed sanctions because it hurt their economy immensely. Putin wanted an easily manipulated puppet in our WH, which he clearly found in Trump.

US defines treason as levying war against our nation or providing aid and comfort to any enemy.

The answer is treason. Donnie should rot in jail like the traitor he is.

You forgot all about Obama and Hillary's reset with Russia and the uranium deal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

.

Hypothetically, if members of the Trump team actively conspired with the Russians to undermine Hillary's campaign,
would they have been guilty of breaking the law?

lol

 

[danielpalos]

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?

.

just politics; is it any wonder why our government spies on former, red communists.