The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[OKTexas]

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.

Where did I say they did an illegal search?

.

 

[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?

.

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."

Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.

“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.

“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

.

 

[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?

.

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.

I'm going to switch gears for a second and ask you a question I posed to another poster in this thread in case you didn't see it.

Which is more dangerous to our elections: Appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies like Harry Reid told from the senate floor about Romney's taxes? Reid admitted it was a lie and laughed about it, saying, it worked didn't it.

.

 

[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?

.

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.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

 

[American_Jihad]

Barack Obama microphone gaffe: 'I'll have more flexibility after election'

...

 

[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.

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

You're a retard and need to classify people in simple terms. You can't answer the challenge, junior.

 

[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?

You're a retard and need to classify people in simple terms. You can't answer the challenge, junior.

Tell me about that uranium deal. Let's see if you really know the truth.
What is wrong with trying to salvage relations with Russia ( legally).

 

[Freewill]

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?

.

In 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 government

Do you mean for example when a president told the Russians that he would be more "flexible" after won the election? that sort of treason?

 

[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.

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

You're a retard and need to classify people in simple terms. You can't answer the challenge, junior.

Tell me about that uranium deal. Let's see if you really know the truth.
What is wrong with trying to salvage relations with Russia ( legally).

Look it up yourself and who says anything is illegal now besides the maggots on the left?

 

[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?

.

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.

No it's not, Bozo. "Treason" is defined as making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Can you show me any official document where Russia is defined as our enemy?

I notice how all you snow flakes substitute these nebulous terms like "adversary" for the actual terms used. That's because you know you're full of shit.

 

[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.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

 

[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?

.

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.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

"Is associated of happening?" Is English your second language?

Russia is not America's enemy. If cyber attacks are an act of war, then why hasn't any country been bombed for doing it?

As always, you're totally full of shit.

 

[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.

No it's not, Bozo. "Treason" is defined as making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Can you show me any official document where Russia is defined as our enemy?

I notice how all you snow flakes substitute these nebulous terms like "adversary" for the actual terms used. That's because you know you're full of shit.

It is Treason--and even one Trump promoter when pressured--publicly admitted that on Bill Maher's program. Russia has been a very bad actor over the last several years. A couple of years ago--hacking into the Pentagon sending that through the Joint Chiefs of Staffs emails--that was moving so fast--they had to shut down the Pentagon for two weeks to replace hardware and sofware.
Russian hack almost brought the U.S. military to its knees

Americans will not tolerate any American citizen that was colluding with Russia for interferring into an American National Election. They will demand prosecution of ANYONE that was colluding with them to do that. We do consider Cyber Attacks to be the 21st Act of War--per Leon Panetta former CIA Chief. Americans would never tolerate no prosecution and just a slap on the wrist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/theres-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air.html?_r=0

 

[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?

.

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.

No it's not, Bozo. "Treason" is defined as making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Can you show me any official document where Russia is defined as our enemy?

I notice how all you snow flakes substitute these nebulous terms like "adversary" for the actual terms used. That's because you know you're full of shit.

It is Treason--and even one Trump promoter when pressured--publicly admitted that on Bill Maher's program. Russia has been a very bad actor over the last several years. A couple of years ago--hacking into the Pentagon sending that through the Joint Chiefs of Staffs emails--that was moving so fast--they had to shut down the Pentagon for two weeks to replace hardware and sofware.
Russian hack almost brought the U.S. military to its knees

Americans will not tolerate Russia trying to interfere into an American National Election. They will demand prosecution of ANYONE that was colluding with them to do that. We do consider Cyber Attacks to be the 21st Act of War. Americans would never tolerate no prosecution and just a slap on the wrist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/theres-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air.html?_r=0

It's not treason, nitwit. The definition of treason is in the Constitution, and your definition doesn't match. You can't prosecute anyone for "collusion" in acts that aren't illegal. Publishing information that someone else obtained illegally isn't a crime. The fake news outlets you love so much do it all the time. I don't see you bleating about that.

 

[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.

No it's not, Bozo. "Treason" is defined as making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Can you show me any official document where Russia is defined as our enemy?

I notice how all you snow flakes substitute these nebulous terms like "adversary" for the actual terms used. That's because you know you're full of shit.

It is Treason--and even one Trump promoter when pressured--publicly admitted that on Bill Maher's program. Russia has been a very bad actor over the last several years. A couple of years ago--hacking into the Pentagon sending that through the Joint Chiefs of Staffs emails--that was moving so fast--they had to shut down the Pentagon for two weeks to replace hardware and sofware.
Russian hack almost brought the U.S. military to its knees

Americans will not tolerate Russia trying to interfere into an American National Election. They will demand prosecution of ANYONE that was colluding with them to do that. We do consider Cyber Attacks to be the 21st Act of War. Americans would never tolerate no prosecution and just a slap on the wrist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/theres-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air.html?_r=0

It's not treason, nitwit. The definition of treason is in the Constitution, and your definition doesn't match. You can't prosecute anyone for "collusion" in acts that aren't illegal. Publishing information that someone else obtained illegally isn't a crime. The fake news outlets you love so much do it all the time. I don't see you bleating about that.

Cyber Attacks are ILLEGAL dumbass. Hacking into any public or private computer is a FELONY in this country--colluding with a Foreign Adversary to hack into the DNC databases to interfere into a National Election is TREASON.

 

[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?

.

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.

No it's not, Bozo. "Treason" is defined as making war on the United States, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States. Can you show me any official document where Russia is defined as our enemy?

I notice how all you snow flakes substitute these nebulous terms like "adversary" for the actual terms used. That's because you know you're full of shit.

It is Treason--and even one Trump promoter when pressured--publicly admitted that on Bill Maher's program. Russia has been a very bad actor over the last several years. A couple of years ago--hacking into the Pentagon sending that through the Joint Chiefs of Staffs emails--that was moving so fast--they had to shut down the Pentagon for two weeks to replace hardware and sofware.
Russian hack almost brought the U.S. military to its knees

Americans will not tolerate Russia trying to interfere into an American National Election. They will demand prosecution of ANYONE that was colluding with them to do that. We do consider Cyber Attacks to be the 21st Act of War. Americans would never tolerate no prosecution and just a slap on the wrist.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/theres-a-smell-of-treason-in-the-air.html?_r=0

It's not treason, nitwit. The definition of treason is in the Constitution, and your definition doesn't match. You can't prosecute anyone for "collusion" in acts that aren't illegal. Publishing information that someone else obtained illegally isn't a crime. The fake news outlets you love so much do it all the time. I don't see you bleating about that.

Cyber Attacks are ILLEGAL dumbass.

Yes, but a third party publishing the proceeds is not. Leaking the names of people who were bugged by an intelligence agency is also illegal. You snowflakes don't give a damn about that, now do you?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

.

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

You are being willfully wrong and present no evidence or argumentation to support that preposterous and twisted logic! Let's parse the statute for you since you are ignoring the first clause of the first sentence of the statute. Here's the relevant passage in full for easy reference;

"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 part pertains to the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" who contacts a foreign government or agent of your HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION to get them to release information at a time that could negatively impact, "...measures of the United States." Those measures might have been such things as the outcome of a free and fair Presidential Election, perhaps! But who knows for sure since it was your HYPOTHETICAL STORY!

"ANY CITIZEN of the United States, wherever HE may be, who, without authority of the United States...." Notice that it pertains to ANY CITIZEN of the United States and NOT to the United States per se or its agencies! To put it succinctly, the CITIZEN would be the object of any violation of LAW. You are WRONG regarding your faulty assertion that the statute ONLY applies to the US Government or its agencies! That was pointed out to you already, but...!

The challenge you set out in the OP has been met and it has been shown that statutory prohibition does exist declaring the conduct of this HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" of your HYPOTHETICAL Scenario unlawful. It's past time to stop your quibbling and admit that 18 U.S. Code § 953 proves that conduct of the US Citizen projected in your OP's HYPOTHETICAL construct would be unlawful!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

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

You are being willfully wrong and present no evidence or argumentation to support that preposterous and twisted logic! Let's parse the statute for you since you are ignoring the first clause of the first sentence of the statute. Here's the relevant passage in full for easy reference;

"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 part pertains to the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" who contacts a foreign government or agent of your HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION to get them to release information at a time that could negatively impact, "...measures of the United States." Those measures might have been such things as the outcome of a free and fair Presidential Election, perhaps! But who knows for sure since it was your HYPOTHETICAL STORY!

"ANY CITIZEN of the United States, wherever HE may be, who, without authority of the United States...." Notice that it pertains to ANY CITIZEN of the United States and NOT to the United States per se or its agencies! To put it succinctly, the CITIZEN would be the object of any violation of LAW. You are WRONG regarding your faulty assertion that the statute ONLY applies to the US Government or its agencies! That was pointed out to you already, but...!

The challenge you set out in the OP has been met and it has been shown that statutory prohibition does exist declaring the conduct of this HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" of your HYPOTHETICAL Scenario unlawful. It's past time to stop your quibbling and admit that 18 U.S. Code § 953 proves that conduct of the US Citizen projected in your OP's HYPOTHETICAL construct would be unlawful!

There isn't a shred of evidence that anyone in the Trump administration has done any such thing, moron.

Next idiot!

 

[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.

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about man?

It was obvious, but given your judgement in question, I'll need to explain it to you. Bripat is a troll, and a not very bright and highly partisan one. In short a fool. Anyone who suggests he is "probably correct" is naive and likely to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, or pay tuition to Donald Trump.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It was obvious, but given your judgement in question, I'll need to explain it to you. Bripat is a troll, and a not very bright and highly partisan one. In short a fool. Anyone who suggests he is "probably correct" is naive and likely to buy the Golden Gate Bridge, or pay tuition to Donald Trump.

ROFL! I'm sure you view anyone who kicks your sorry dumb ass on a regular basis to be a troll.