The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[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

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.

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about man?

 

[RealDave]

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.

Yet another fucking Trumpette moron who is ignorant on the Uranium story. Were you born this fucking stupid?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

Trump admitted to nothing except an opinion that he thought it was the Russians. A lot of people thought it was Russians.

The whole hacking crap is stupid. What happened?

John Podesta fell for a common phishing scheme getting him to click on a phony link. This revealed that his password was "password". Then in a remarkable display of utter stupidity, he didn't change his password. The non hacker hackers who might have been ten years old, learned that the DNC was crooked. Bernie Sanders was screwed over, Donna Brazile was given the debate questions by CNN.

Everything that happened was the fault of the Democrats. Now they want to blame the Russians. Nope.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Seven years from now you will be singing the same tune. Your snowflake delusions are beyond pathetic.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The discussion is about people who do have clearance, like Hillary, you brain damaged numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The case has nothing to do with what you claim, moron. Did you actually read it?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Co-conspirator" to what? You are a fucking joke.

 

[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.

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

When the Russians did what hacking? No specific incidents have ever been mentioned. Your dealing in smoke and mirrors.

 

[bripat9643]

“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.

How much are they wasting on this "Russian hack" faux scandal?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You're the one selling the bridge, numskull.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying a recognized state of war exist between the US and Russia? Really?

.

Don't tell me or anyone what they're saying unless they say it. Otherwise you assertion is not an opinion, it is a logical fallacy and an incredulous statement.

Do you deny a cold war exists today between Russia and the US? But that was not the point of my post, colluding with Russia on an effort to elect someone to our highest office is providing them aid and comfort; failing to fully investigate the matter - to indict or to exculpate - is misfeasance at best and nonfeasance, as seen by the recent speech by Senator Leader McConnell in his partisan and contumelies affronts to the Constitution of the US.

Just saying, treason is a very high bar to meet, and I don't think todays climate would qualify. But as an aside, when we were in a hot war in Iraq a US senator committed real treason when he stood in the well of the senate and said "the surge has failed, the war is lost". Did you call for his head?

.

No, but how is that relevant? If he did so, which I don't recall and you didn't provide a link, it would have been done in public.

Treason is a high burden, making the allegation requires thoughtful and considered judgments. In the context of my remark, I pointed out McConnell, not for Treason - but IMO maybe only - for being very close in his remarks to Misprision of Treason.

see: 18 U.S. Code § 2382 - Misprision of treason

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."

Maybe that's a reach, but this seems to be on point:

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

"Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both."

See: 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Given that McConnell may owe allegiance to President Trump (who appointed McConnell's Wife to his cabinet) how can we trust McConnell's comments are not built on a foundation of a conflict of interest?

Did I miss a link on McConnell's comments, I not aware of any allegations against him for trying to impede any investigation.

.

Then I must infer you live in a cave (metaphorically) and the news you watch is limited to the shadows reflected on its walls:



Now, listen on to the comments by Sen Warren. Without bias, consider her remarks, and consider the number of on going active investigations by the GOP on Behghazi and the E-Mails.

I don't see the news every day and only McConnell was on the video. But my comment was in relation to existing investigations, we don't need a new one just to satisfy you political desires.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The very definition of his position gives him the authority to chose what the FBI pursues or chooses not to.

WTF are you talking about? What was there to pursue further? Comey testified that the FBI's CONCLUDED investigation into Hillary proved Hillary DID break the law. He then testified that HE decided not to recommend indictment because HE believed she did not know she was breaking the law.

The statute requires "criminal intent" to convict. Comey said there was no criminal intent, therefore no ability to convict under the statute. If you can't convict, why bring an indictment. That would just be a WASTE of government resources. Spending millions of dollars, on a waste of time.

Actually if you read the statute, it only requires gross negligence.

(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Where does it say intent is required to constitute a violation?

.

 

[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?

.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Of course, you'll not accept this and quibble about what the definition of "is" is, but I'm not going to follow you down one of your fucking myriad rabbit holes! The person in your 'hypothetical' scenario would have committed a felony.

The DNC and the bitches campaign are private entities and not the US.

.

I said you'd fucking quibble! Your misdirection is noted and graded a FAIL! You're now taking your own DECLARED HYPOYHETICAL into another realm invoking the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Therefore, that's just another of your fucking non sequiturs to dodge and pivot from your stupidity!

The hypothetical person of your creation can be, "Any citizen of the United States..." (first clause of the Statute). Now how about sticking to your OWN FUCKING PREMISE, Tex? You're wrong in your assumption given the scenario YOU laid out. Live with it, shit for brains!

You might want to read the OP again the bitch was clearly mentioned. Also I have maintained civil responses in this thread and I would appreciate you do the same. If you can't don't expect a response.

.

So what if Clinton was "mentioned". That is totally irrelevant!

It was the HYPOTHETICAL ACTION of a HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" taking place between him and a HYPOTHETICAL RUSSIAN representative that was the subject of your HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION and implied challenge to find a statute covering any wrongdoing within that HYPOTHETICAL tale. That is the conduct that would be violative of 18 U.S. Code § 953, and those ACTIONS are the relative maters vis-à-vis the Statute cited and your HYPOTHETICAL!

Your reference to Clinton and the DNC has absolutely nothing to do with the situation except as subjects, read that as props, within that scenario of your device and construction. Your challenge was met, but I knew you'd quibble and you have, simply to dissemble and cover your ire over being shown that a Federal Statute did, indeed, exist proving that type of conduct is unlawful!

Whether you respond or not is up to you, Tex!

18 U.S. Code § 953, only applies to the US Government or its agencies, it's right there in the statute.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You just posted a full agreement with my statement. Whether from incompetence, or inability to know right from wrong, there was no criminal intent, proof of which is needed to get a conviction.

REVISITING THIS COMMENT:

'Hillary did not intend to break the law'
.

As I said, if you can't prove "criminal intent" you can't convict under the statute.

The only reason to operate private email server is with intent to hide the information (classified or not) she was sending and receiving. If there was no intent to commit the crime, there wouldn't be a reason to bleachbit it.

Plus all of the bitches false exculpatory statement also show intent.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Charges for weapon possession based on what?

Businesses may "exclude weapons on their premises" Examples include airlines, federal buildings, and court houses.

In TX and every other State I know of don't allow firearms in banks, licensed or not, period.

 

[oreo]

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?

Collusion with a Foreign adversary to interfere into an American election TREASON. As to your hypothetical question: So if Russian intelligence agents or the ambasssador contacted Trump or his surrogate's and said do you want this information to use. It is still collusion--and it is still TREASON. Any other campaign would have refused that information from a foreign adversary--and would have refused to even talk with them.

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com
James Comey confirms FBI investigation into possible Trump-Russia connections



Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
Flynn was paid to lobby for Turkey while attending Trump intel briefings: report
Michael Flynn paid over $30,000 by Russian TV, top House Dem says - CNNPolitics.com
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm

Jeff Sessions spoke twice with Russian envoy during presidential campaign: Department of Justice

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ump-fires-fbi-director-james-comey/101485500/

 

[oreo]

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?

.

Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON. It doesn't matter who contacted who first. Any other campaign would have refused to talk with a Foreign adversary, much less accept information from them.

 

[oreo]

"October surprises" are an American tradition unfortunately. The Democrats used everything they had in their "October surprise" playbook with the help of Hollywood and the MSM...and they lost in a landslide! That is one reason for the current psychosis of the MSM/Hollywood/Democrat politicians. As far as the insane scenario the Democrats and their MSM/Hollywood, etc. are pushing that Russia hacked the DNC (and even more crazy innuendo such as hacking voting machines) and gave the emails to Wikileaks and Wikileaks communicated with the Republicans to time their release. There is nothing even if there was some way to prove they did.

Here in Connecticut the cops generally do not even investigate cell phone fraud/hacking (the Apple Pay scam) let alone computer hacking/fraud and any identity theft even. Totally incompetent detectives. Anyhow there is this..."By law, the value of property or computer services in a computer crime is (1) their market value; (2) if they are unrecoverable, damaged, or destroyed, the cost of reproducing or replacing them; (3) $250 if their value or damage cannot be satisfactorily ascertained; or (4) $1,500 for private personal data (CGS § 53a-259)."

You don't win by 3 million popular votes & call it a landslide loss--LOL

It's probably best that Hillary Clinton did not win. Because if she won--we never know what the Trump campaign was doing during the campaign season. Let's face it a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be very boring compared to the circus we're watching right now. And it looks like this is headed toward impeachment and possible prosecution of several members of the Trump campaign--& possibly Trump himself. Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON. Punishable by a mandatory life sentence in a Federal Prison.

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com
James Comey confirms FBI investigation into possible Trump-Russia connections



Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
Flynn was paid to lobby for Turkey while attending Trump intel briefings: report
Michael Flynn received more than $33,000 from Russian TV
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm

Jeff Sessions spoke twice with Russian envoy during presidential campaign: Department of Justice
Sessions recuses himself from Russia investigations - CNNPolitics.com
Did AG Sessions violate his recusal by advising on the decision to fire Comey?

Trump fires FBI director James Comey - CNNPolitics.com

When you elect a Clown--the circus is going to show up.

 

[OKTexas]

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.”

You can establish mens rea with her setting up the server to avoid federal records keeping laws all the way through her false exculpatory statements to congress. In fact her perjury referrals from both houses of congress are still pending at the DOJ.

.

 

[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?

.

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.

Please quote the statute. BTW would that include secretly recording closed campaign strategy meetings and releasing it, like they did to Mitt?

.