The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[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.

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?

In other words, you got no evidence.

Thanks for playing!

 

[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?

.

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

More than just a chance interaction? That phrase is absolutely meaningless.

Snowflakes are good at spouting meaningless bullshit that appears to have a point.

 

[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 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

It's not treason, idiot. Read the fucking Constitution.

Panetta says it's an act of war? Then why didn't he demand a declaration of war against Russia?

He's obviously full of shit, and so are you.

Here's another idiocy that needs correcting: no one is accusing anyone in the Trump administration of participating in cyber attacks.

Time for all you snowflakes to start living in the real world.

 

[Aries]

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.

"Russia if you're listening, we'd like to see Hillary's emails"
*cue email dump*

Trump is crazy like a fox. Hiding in plain sight.

 

[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.

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

So now it is a battle of which side was more unethical? So what was worse? Collusion to deny Sanders a real chance at the nomination or the person who colluded to expose it? Was it worse to arrange for questions in advance or was it worse to expose the advance knowledge of the questions?

Let's be honest shall we? The truth is that both sides suck. Every election in my thirty years of voting has been essentially the lesser of two evils. Every election we hear from the Democrats how evil the Republicans are. Every election we hear from those same Republicans that the Democrats are evil. They are both right. Both sides suck.

Up until this election I voted Democrat. The reason is I felt they were slightly less evil than the Republicans. Hillary took that defense from me. It is hard to argue that Hillary is less evil than anyone this side of Hell. She was the one Democrat that I could not, would not, under any circumstances vote for.

The unethical behavior of Hillary infected the Democratic Party. The lawyers for the Democratic Party are even are even now arguing in court that they don't have to honor any elections, or have a fair vote to determine their nominee. This is the party that prides itself as being of the people.

So when I cast my ballot, I voted for the least evil option. All while hoping that one party or the other would develop some core beliefs. The Democrats demanded that Comey be fired. Right up until he was. The only core belief the Democrats have is they are exactly opposed to anything the Republicans want.

If Trump came out and said he was now a fan of Obamacare because he'd bought a health insurance company the Democrats would demand that it be repealed.

The Democratic Party is in favor of winning. They are opposed to losing elections. That pretty much covers their core beliefs. In this election, neither side was ethical. Both of them sucked.

 

[radical right]

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.

Everybody who quoted Clapper saying he cleared Trump, post your apology here.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Everybody who quoted Clapper saying he cleared Trump, post your apology here.

No one ever said that, so why would they post an apology for saying it?

 

[radical right]

Everybody who quoted Clapper saying he cleared Trump, post your apology here.

No one ever said that, so why would they post an apology for saying it?

You grow more stupid with each post, he just said it, and you quoted it in your post.

No evidence ... Clapper said it

He claimed Clapper said there was no evidence. Clapper said he hadn't seen any, not that there wasn't any.

 

[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.

.

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

Yet even with two pleases in my request neither you or your left wing hate site can cite a statute that would support such a charge, go figure.

.

 

[radical right]

Yet even with two pleases in my request neither you or your left wing hate site can cite a statute that would support such a charge, go figure.

.

18 U.S. Code § 2381

 

[Slade3200]

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?

No, that isn't even close. Nice try though

 

[bripat9643]

Everybody who quoted Clapper saying he cleared Trump, post your apology here.

No one ever said that, so why would they post an apology for saying it?

You grow more stupid with each post, he just said it, and you quoted it in your post.

No evidence ... Clapper said it

He claimed Clapper said there was no evidence. Clapper said he hadn't seen any, not that there wasn't any.

Who said Clapper cleared Trump?

 

[bripat9643]

Yet even with two pleases in my request neither you or your left wing hate site can cite a statute that would support such a charge, go figure.

.

18 U.S. Code § 2381

So who, besides Ted Kennedy, did that?

 

[toobfreak]

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.

"Russia if you're listening, we'd like to see Hillary's emails"
*cue email dump*

Trump is crazy like a fox. Hiding in plain sight.

Funny, I was just noticing your cartoon of Lady Justice holding back Trump and I had to wonder, wasn't it Obama that the SUPREME COURT had to rule several times he had gone way beyond his authority? Only example so far with Trump is the 9th Circuit, predictably liberal and often overturned, blocking Trump on specious grounds.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I agree with you about bripat, he is an idiot... but not about the acknowledgement.. even the low IQ trolls like bripat can make correct or agreeable statements every once in a while. If we aren't able to acknowledge that then what's the point of having a discussion? If you are always going to disagree Because of the person speaking and not objectively listen to the substance, then what does that say about you?

 

[radical right]

Who said Clapper cleared Trump?

Stop playing stupid, it's right here.

No evidence ... Clapper said it

 

[OKTexas]

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!

Allow me refresh your memory on the OP.

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.

If you note, the Trump associate didn't know about the information before the contact was made, they gained that knowledge during the contact.

And once again, your trying to shoehorn that statute to apply to something it clearly doesn't is on you not me.

 

[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.

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?

If evidence of collusion is product of an investigation, how can you talk about collusion if there hasn't been an investigation?

 

[toobfreak]

Clapper stated on March 3rd on Meet The Nation I believe that multiple intelligence agencies combined like the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., had zero evidence of any collusion by Donald Trump with Russia.

Meantime, if anyone needs, I can list about six other highly credible things that definitely need investigating! But they are all on the DNC, Hillary, Obama and associates.

 

[OKTexas]

Yet even with two pleases in my request neither you or your left wing hate site can cite a statute that would support such a charge, go figure.

.

18 U.S. Code § 2381

Funny, I don't see where that might include enemies of the DNC, Podesta or the hildabitch. Are you so uninformed that you aren't aware that they are not the United States?

.