The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[bripat9643]

The law doesn't require criminal intent. How many times do you morons have to be told that?

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. Moreover, it is the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime.

Mens Rea

See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing themens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in criminal trial. In doing so, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind. Justice Holmes famously illustrated the concept of intent when he said “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.”

It doesn't apply to the laws on dealing with classified material, you fucking moron. How many times do you have to be told that?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Hacking computers is a crime, regardless of whether it is related to an election. However, there's no evidence that anything published by Wikileaks is the result of Russian hacking. None of you snowflakes have ever posted a single piece of evidence that Russia is behind the Wikileaks releases.

 

[charwin95]

I'm not sure it breaks any laws in the way you described.

However, what you're leaving out is whether or not the Russian representative broke the law to acquire the "really bad shit". If you're aware of US Laws being broken and do nothing about it and, in fact, seek to benefit from it...the electorate should be made aware that you have no respect for the law.

In this case, Roger Stone, a Trump Associate admits to interaction with Guccifer (the Russian hacker US intel concludes hacked Ms .Clinton's e-mails) and even tweeted that her campaign manager will "have his turn in the barrel" six weeks prior to the release of his hacked files. Why a man with the President's ear is chatting with a hacker is mind boggling in and of itself.... That the hacker is probably responsible for breaking the law and Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump did nothing about it...tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take our electoral process.

so? what would you do to the Russian guy? tell us please.

Not much you can do to the Russian guy/guys.

You can impanel grand jurie(s) to compel the under oath testimonies of Stone, Flynn, Bannon, the President, the VP, etc and as we saw with Whitewater, it can go ANYWHERE from there. Those who don’t testify can be held in contempt with any punitive action taken as a result. As I recall, jail time is usually a remedy for that.

You can also subpoena the hacker(s). I doubt they’d show up. But it would be fun to monitor their bank accounts (they’d be fools to get paid in rubles) and watch them swell and trace that money back to Washington, New York or Mura Lago….

“What did the President know and when did he know it…..”

why do you need to impanel a grand jury exactly. what you got?

At least 4 people with ties to the campaign or the President himself had high level contacts with Russian that they lied about/didn’t disclose fully.

The AG had to correct his testimony when he wasn’t honest.
Michael Flynn had to resign when he lied about the nature of his contact
Paul Manafort had to resign due to his ties to the Russian Government
Roger Stone has interactions with a Hacker (aka criminal) who is credited with hacking the President’s political opponents; knew about a yet-to-be-released hack 6 weeks in advance.

Your move.

so why no grand jury? indictments? if you have all of this? what do you think it actually means? what do you think happened? come on dude, post something of significance that backs your fking claim.

Dude that is why there are several investigations going on. It will get there unless Trump keeps interfering with the investigation. Just wait.
Even a regular crime like murder sometimes it takes years before it goes to the court. Example Aaron Hernandez acquittal from July 2012 murder.
This Trump and the Russian are far more complex than that so it will take time.

 

[radical right]

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.

.

Hair v. United States, D.C. Cir., 110 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 289 F.2d 894 (1961), the court... held that it was error to permit stolen goods which had been seized from A in violation of A's rights to be used against B.

 

[charwin95]

Conspiracy

Really? What exactly did the conspire to do?

.

That is what the investigations are all about. You asked what laws may have been broken. Change your hypothetical scenario to include other meetings where the Russians may have mentioned some kind of cooperation with a trump administration with sanctions. If the trump administration or campaign official showed a willingness to cooperate and a later representative met with the Russians and got an offer or suggestion that illegally obtained emails would be leaked, that would be a conspiracy to obtain or have use of illegally obtained espionage products, hence, a criminal conspiracy. I am not trying to argue the merits of the case, rather, answering your original question about what law may have been violated.

so when does an investigation that produces nothing after eleven months end? well?

The President's National Security Advisor has his case being heard in front of a grand jury. He has admitted failing to register as a foreign agent. Technically, he was a secret foreign agent. One of his campaign officials, Manafort has admitted to also failing to register as a foreign agent also. For some reason, you guys don't recognize those situations as evidence of wrongdoing.

link

You are asking for a link on Flynn and Manafort means you don't know shit. Why don't you go update yourself before coming to to this board?

 

[radical right]

It doesn't apply to the laws on dealing with classified material, you fucking moron. How many times do you have to be told that?

Actually there is no law preventing people who don't have a security clearance, from releasing classified information. See Robert Novack incident, and NY Times Pentagon Papers case.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

.

Hair v. United States, D.C. Cir., 110 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 289 F.2d 894 (1961), the court... held that it was error to permit stolen goods which had been seized from A in violation of A's rights to be used against B.

Tex ain't a gonna like that! Watch out for the shit storm on the horizon and rig for heavy weather!

 

[radical right]

link

You are asking for a link on Flynn and Manafort means you don't know shit. Why don't you go update yourself before coming to to this board?

The guy is a troll. All he does is ask for links and posts of things he knows are common knowledge.

 

[charwin95]

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?

.

Conspiracy

Really? What exactly did the conspire to do?

.

That is what the investigations are all about. You asked what laws may have been broken. Change your hypothetical scenario to include other meetings where the Russians may have mentioned some kind of cooperation with a trump administration with sanctions. If the trump administration or campaign official showed a willingness to cooperate and a later representative met with the Russians and got an offer or suggestion that illegally obtained emails would be leaked, that would be a conspiracy to obtain or have use of illegally obtained espionage products, hence, a criminal conspiracy. I am not trying to argue the merits of the case, rather, answering your original question about what law may have been violated.

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

 

[charwin95]

the "hackers" whether they were Russian, wikileaks, or someone else, exposed corruption, cheating, and lying within the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the media.

The public had a right to that information, information that would have made Hillary easy to blackmail by both domestic and foreign interests.

The hackers and wikileaks should be rewarded for exposing the truth.

So if someone hack Trump tax returns exposing his corruptness ------ Is that supposed to be acceptable?

 

[radical right]

So if someone hack Trump tax returns exposing his corruptness ------ Is that supposed to be acceptable?

Interesting twist. They claim no criminality by being a co conspirator with the russians, yet they would jump all over somebody releasing stolen Trump tax returns.

 

[charwin95]

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.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Hacking computers is a crime, regardless of whether it is related to an election. However, there's no evidence that anything published by Wikileaks is the result of Russian hacking. None of you snowflakes have ever posted a single piece of evidence that Russia is behind the Wikileaks releases.

Actually Trump admitted admitted that Russian did the hacking when they showed him the evidence last Jan. 11, 2017. This was even posted over and over by several members.

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence community

 

[charwin95]

“It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC.

so what happened to obummer's investigation of it?

Obama said he had a country to save from Bush's recession, and financial collapse, 700,000 jobs lost a month, and a $1.5 trillion deficit. Obama didn't go after many of Bush's crimes because he had bigger more important problems.

well four americans died on hitlery's watch. I want to see the emails from benghazi but I can't cause hitlery had them deleted. intent. sorry. hitlery to jail.

After 2 years and $7 millions wasted in this investigation------- Trey Gowdy a republican that led the investigation didn't find anything to prosecute Hillary. You are hopeless.

 

[francoHFW]

Which Trump campaign member is guilty of hacking?

I would ask, which Trump campaign member did anything illegal?

Several candidates being investigated....do Foxbots and dupes understand that FBI investigations don't follow the BS GOP propaganda machine's ADHD schedule? Unless it's Comey on Hilary, that is?

True, there are investigations, only to satisfy the butthurt left, not because there is really something. When current investigation ends, they will demand new one and they'll probably get it. After that, they'll insist on special prosecutor and probably will get it. When none of investigations give results they can be satisfied with, they'll still demand something... impeachment... REEEEE.

Again, name any Trump campaign member that did anything illegal.

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.

"Dems don't do fake investigations?"

ANY example? Like 8 GOP congressional witch hunts of BENGAZEEE!!!! Nothing. 25 straight years of Clinton bs...You're in the Fake News Party.

 

[charwin95]

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?

.

1. Russia is a well known adversaries of America. Putin and his government are serious threat to American civilization before ISIS.
2. Any connection -------- ANY connections of a candidates especially president with the Russians to interfere into our democracy is NOT acceptable. Those are called traitors.
3. Any specific law broken ------ That would be espionage by the Russian and treason by Trump associates.
4. How you applied your HYPOTHETICAL doesn't match the reality.

Your turn.

 

[Slade3200]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

That part of it is pretty simple. Trump is their guy, they back him just like you do your favorite sports team. The Russia thing erodes his credibility and pokes at his ego which is why he still boasts about the election and why he and his supporters try to dismiss it.

no, the fact remains the witch hunt is all dems, and to date, not one can produce a shred of evidence. So, until then, the Trumpster rules.

It's actually not all Dems. It is the FBI. The Dems and the media are definitely keeping a spotlight on it and many are making partisan assumptions, but don't pretend like it's a fantasy witch hunt. It is real and it is serious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"On Wednesday, one of the most powerful lawmakers in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), basically flat-out said he wouldn't support a special investigation. The various committees in Congress already looking into Russian meddling will suffice, he said: “Today we'll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.”
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/10/mitch-mcconnell-just-shut-down-any-hopes-democrats-had-of-an-independent-russia-investigation/?utm_term=.9aeff353b02d

Does McConnell have a conflict of interest? His wife is a member of Trump's cabinet. Is McConnell protecting him in a classic quid pro quo?

so you don't trust the FBI? Who would be the person? I love it when you stupid fks never think anything through.

Oh, what is the crime?

I do trust the FBI, during my career I worked with several supervising members of the FBI and was impressed with their dedication, intelligence and their suits.

 

[Slade3200]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

That part of it is pretty simple. Trump is their guy, they back him just like you do your favorite sports team. The Russia thing erodes his credibility and pokes at his ego which is why he still boasts about the election and why he and his supporters try to dismiss it.

The snowflakes are pushing the "Russia thing" purely in an attempt to damage Trump. They don't give a damn whether Russia meddled in our election. They would be all for it if Hillary had won.

Yes you are probably correct

 

[Slade3200]

The snowflakes are pushing the "Russia thing" purely in an attempt to damage Trump. They don't give a damn whether Russia meddled in our election. They would be all for it if Hillary had won.

Would Hillary have bugged the whitehouse?

She and Obama conducted espionage on the Trump campaign. Isn't that about the same thing?

What's your evidence of espionage?

 

[Wry Catcher]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

That part of it is pretty simple. Trump is their guy, they back him just like you do your favorite sports team. The Russia thing erodes his credibility and pokes at his ego which is why he still boasts about the election and why he and his supporters try to dismiss it.

The snowflakes are pushing the "Russia thing" purely in an attempt to damage Trump. They don't give a damn whether Russia meddled in our election. They would be all for it if Hillary had won.

Yes you are probably correct

I have a bridge for sale in which you might be interested. It spans the entrance to SF Bay, and cars cross it every day generating a massive income. Please call me, I believe in the remark made years ago, "there is a sucker born every minute", and by asserting Bripat is "probably correct" means you are one of those suckers, and I'd be happy to offer you my 80% in the bridge, left to me by my grandfather, a partner with AP Giannini in the Bank of Italy in the days before the earthquake in 1906.