The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[Wry Catcher]

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.

.

My desire is to see a real, non partisan investigation, and has nothing to do with my (admitted) desire to see Donald Trump kicked out of office.

There is nothing the Congress - especially the H. of Rep. under the control of Tits on a bull Speaker Ryan - can do which is not political, even when domestic and foreign issues are as daunting as they are today.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

Tex and I were discussing his HYPOTHETICAL from HIS OP, shit for brains. The HYPOTHETICAL TRUMP Associate was part of Tex's construct, you whiney little bitch! I suggest you talk to Tex about what has you so agitated, you little sheep shanking Orange sycophant!

Oh, and have a nice day!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

ROLF! Whatever you say, snowflake.

 

[SavannahMann]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

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

Any takers?

.

I'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.

Nonsense. Let's be honest. Let's say someone burglarized a house. He finds evidence of kiddie porn. He is disgusted by what he sees. The burglar takes the evidence and leaves. He has committed a crime by breaking and entering. He has stolen property. Two crimes right there.

The next day the burglar mails the evidence to the police. He uses the address he robbed as the return address. The police receive the evidence and start on the way to getting the warrants.

They aren't colliding with the burglar. Or even this way. It is doubtful that the Trump Co folks met directly with Guccifier. If they met with anyone they met with a cut out. Someone who knows someone who knows someone else.

In Police Terminology a confidential informant.

Someone who hears things.

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?

Are you going after the hackers? Why are they less moral in your book than the burglar who mails the kiddie porn to the police? Yes they committed a crime. But as a mediating factor they exposed a more serious crime in the process.

 

[healthmyths]

By keeping the candidate who would have continued sanctions out of the WH!

"It always takes time for sanctions to bring results. Restrictive measures are usually designed to have gradual effect over a mid- to long-term horizon. I guess the architects of the sanction regime against Russia should be surprised at how soon it has brought damage. First, sanctions have taken toll on elements of the Russian ruling class that are integrated into the West. One example: The losses due to frozen assets in the U.S. alone of an oligarch close to Putin, Yuri Kovalchuk, totaled $572 million, and the oligarch Rottenberg brothers sustained losses in Italy worth nearly $40 million. Second, sanctions have exacerbated the economic recession in Russia: by accelerating capital flight and shrinking internal financial resources; by restricting Russia’s access to international financial markets and triggering a financial crunch; and by creating crisis of confidence in international business circles regarding Russia."

The Sanctions on Russia: How Hard Do They Bite?

Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions on Russia

Aren't those sanctions still in place?

.

Yea obviously he wouldn't lift them right now...
But you never know with Trump

Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.

.

What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"

And what I know is what Obama told a Putin aide...
As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” —
until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
[NOTE: Isn't this collusion? Obama is asking Russia not to do anything that would prevent his re-election... THAT is collusion"]
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
FACT CHECK: Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election

So here we have a sitting president of the USA asking Putin’s protégé to ask Putin to back off until Obama's re-elected!
Is that not collusion? An effort to sway a USA election?

 

[Aries]

By keeping the candidate who would have continued sanctions out of the WH!

"It always takes time for sanctions to bring results. Restrictive measures are usually designed to have gradual effect over a mid- to long-term horizon. I guess the architects of the sanction regime against Russia should be surprised at how soon it has brought damage. First, sanctions have taken toll on elements of the Russian ruling class that are integrated into the West. One example: The losses due to frozen assets in the U.S. alone of an oligarch close to Putin, Yuri Kovalchuk, totaled $572 million, and the oligarch Rottenberg brothers sustained losses in Italy worth nearly $40 million. Second, sanctions have exacerbated the economic recession in Russia: by accelerating capital flight and shrinking internal financial resources; by restricting Russia’s access to international financial markets and triggering a financial crunch; and by creating crisis of confidence in international business circles regarding Russia."

The Sanctions on Russia: How Hard Do They Bite?

Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions on Russia

Aren't those sanctions still in place?

.

Yea obviously he wouldn't lift them right now...
But you never know with Trump

Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.

.

What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"

And what I know is what Obama told a Putin aide...
As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” —
until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
[NOTE: Isn't this collusion? Obama is asking Russia not to do anything that would prevent his re-election... THAT is collusion"]
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
FACT CHECK: Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election

So here we have a sitting president of the USA asking Putin’s protégé to ask Putin to back off until Obama's re-elected!
Is that not collusion? An effort to sway a USA election?

you have a point hiding in there somewhere?

 

[healthmyths]

Aren't those sanctions still in place?

.

Yea obviously he wouldn't lift them right now...
But you never know with Trump

Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.

.

What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"

And what I know is what Obama told a Putin aide...
As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” —
until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
[NOTE: Isn't this collusion? Obama is asking Russia not to do anything that would prevent his re-election... THAT is collusion"]
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
FACT CHECK: Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election

So here we have a sitting president of the USA asking Putin’s protégé to ask Putin to back off until Obama's re-elected!
Is that not collusion? An effort to sway a USA election?

you have a point hiding in there somewhere?

Of course this MAJOR point went over your pointy head!
A) Trump colluded with Russia to put out bad information about Hillary.
B) Obama colluded Putin to hold off on any actions so Obama could get re-elected.
What is the difference?

 

[healthmyths]

I mean where was all the angst about Obama asking Russia to help him get re-elected?

 

[Aries]

Yea obviously he wouldn't lift them right now...
But you never know with Trump

Yet you insinuated you do, go figure.

.

What I know is Putin wanted a buddy in the WH. And if this Russia story never got out the sanctions would probably already be lifted. Trump was grooming American for a Russian alliance all campaign saying "Putin can help us fight Isis Putin can help us fight Isis"

And what I know is what Obama told a Putin aide...
As he was leaning toward Medvedev in Seoul, Obama was overheard asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” —
until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues.
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
[NOTE: Isn't this collusion? Obama is asking Russia not to do anything that would prevent his re-election... THAT is collusion"]
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
The exchange, parts of it inaudible, was monitored by a White House pool of television journalists as well as Russian reporters listening live from their press center.
FACT CHECK: Obama Pledged 'More Flexibility' Toward Russia After 2012 Election

So here we have a sitting president of the USA asking Putin’s protégé to ask Putin to back off until Obama's re-elected!
Is that not collusion? An effort to sway a USA election?

you have a point hiding in there somewhere?

Of course this MAJOR point went over your pointy head!
A) Trump colluded with Russia to put out bad information about Hillary.
B) Obama colluded Putin to hold off on any actions so Obama could get re-elected.
What is the difference?

one is treason, one is an out of context quote.

 

[Aries]

I mean where was all the angst about Obama asking Russia to help him get re-elected?

fake news alternative facts

 

[healthmyths]

I mean where was all the angst about Obama asking Russia to help him get re-elected?

fake news alternative facts

Not sure where there is "fake news". Trump and others are wrong about the MSM putting out "fake" news.
What you have is a MSM putting out BIASED news.
Now are both pictures accurate? Are they both biased? YES on both counts.

NOTE the "angelic" glow behind Schumer's head?

NOTE the "Horns" above Bannon's head???

Could have used this picture of Schumer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

ROLF! Whatever you say, snowflake.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^ and an example of what bripat believes is an ass kicking. Poor pitiful troll, challenged by reality and feeble of mind.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

ROLF! Whatever you say, snowflake.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^ and an example of what bripat believes is an ass kicking. Poor pitiful troll, challenged by reality and feeble of mind.

How do you respond to an incoherent rant consisting entirely of insults?

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm glad you agree that Bush should have been charged and convicted of a crime, when he set up a private e-mail server in the white house (owned by the RNC), where millions of e-mails were erased to cover up his firing of the US attorneys, which were being subpeoned.

Although the cases are nothing alike, for the sake of the argument, lets say Bush should've been charged.

What happened to having a private e-mail server, and erasing e-mails from it was proof of criminal activity?

You conveniently deleted the part of my reply, didn't you...

Why don't you answer the question?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Where is that evidence of collusion?

No evidence - Deputy AG said it, AG said it, Clapper said it, it only exist in butthurt leftist heads that can't get over the fact they lost the elections fair and square.

You want collusion of interfering with the elections? Here is one, collusion between Democrats and leftist media.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

ROLF! Whatever you say, snowflake.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^ and an example of what bripat believes is an ass kicking. Poor pitiful troll, challenged by reality and feeble of mind.

How do you respond to an incoherent rant consisting entirely of insults?

I usually ignore you, but when things are slow I respond and let you know what you are, as I did above. You may not be stupid, but your posts suggest you are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Where is that evidence of collusion?

No evidence - Deputy AG said it, AG said it, Clapper said it, it only exist in butthurt leftist heads that can't get over the fact they lost the elections fair and square.

You want collusion of interfering with the elections? Here is one, collusion between Democrats and leftist media.

Do you think before you post, or only emote?

Q. What evidence is there of collusion?

A. Evidence is the product of an investigation, as most everyone but you seem to understand.

An allegation wherein a mob yells in unison, "Lock her Up" is not what anyone is now doing; the effort by the Senate Minority Leader is to put a flashlight on the question: Did Trump or his surrogates collude with the Russian Government to win his election?

 

[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?

.

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.

Nonsense. Let's be honest. Let's say someone burglarized a house. He finds evidence of kiddie porn. He is disgusted by what he sees. The burglar takes the evidence and leaves. He has committed a crime by breaking and entering. He has stolen property. Two crimes right there.

The next day the burglar mails the evidence to the police. He uses the address he robbed as the return address. The police receive the evidence and start on the way to getting the warrants.

They aren't colliding with the burglar. Or even this way. It is doubtful that the Trump Co folks met directly with Guccifier. If they met with anyone they met with a cut out. Someone who knows someone who knows someone else.

In Police Terminology a confidential informant.

Someone who hears things.

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?

Are you going after the hackers? Why are they less moral in your book than the burglar who mails the kiddie porn to the police? Yes they committed a crime. But as a mediating factor they exposed a more serious crime in the process.

What “crime” did the hackers expose?

Roger Stone (who Trump tweeted out of thin air about last night that “he hasn’t talked to in months’—gee wonder why he’s now distancing himself from Stoney???) had more than just a chance interaction with the hacker credited for hacking the DNC and foreshadowed another hack-job by some guy named Honey Bear or something like that… So he had foreknowledge..


Did any of the Trump enablers break the law? Doubtful.

But is this what you want from your Presidential candidates and their campaigns? People who are this shady to where they are holding conference with hackers and phishers

 

[bripat9643]

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

Seems I left out a bullet point. IMO you are a troll, a fool, a partisan hack and challenged by reality.

ROLF! Whatever you say, snowflake.

IDIOT-GRAM ^^^ and an example of what bripat believes is an ass kicking. Poor pitiful troll, challenged by reality and feeble of mind.

How do you respond to an incoherent rant consisting entirely of insults?

I usually ignore you, but when things are slow I respond and let you know what you are, as I did above. You may not be stupid, but your posts suggest you are.

Your posts are always so ironic.