The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[bripat9643]

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?

"Idiot" must be the label you apply to people who demonstrate what an ignorant fool you are. Wry Catcher is the biggest fool in the forum.

 

[Ame®icano]

"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.

Liar.

That's not what he said.

 

[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?

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

You've caught him caught up in his own contradiction. That's the story of this whole faux scandal.

 

[radical right]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

 

[radical right]

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

Liar.

That's not what he said.

Your post says "Trump asks Russia to hack Hillary's e-mails" Which is actually worse than his description.

 

[Aries]

"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.

Liar.

That's not what he said.

I am not a liar i just paraphrased, should have dropped the quotes or looked up the exact words.
But how can you call me a liar than post a video entitled "trump asks russia for hillary's emails"
lol what a waste of space you are.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

So where is the evidence that anyone in the Trump administration broke these laws?

On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence that people in the Obama administration broke laws against unmasking American citizens and then leaking that information to the press.

 

[Thinker101]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Frankly hold all officials to a high standard of honesty... it didn't help that Obama and Hillary had low standards in those regards

 

[Aries]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

So where is the evidence that anyone in the Trump administration broke these laws?

On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence that people in the Obama administration broke laws against unmasking American citizens and then leaking that information to the press.

trump himself, on live tv, asked for russia to hack hillary's emails. I think that falls under "urging them to complete the crime" conspiracy.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

"Idiot" must be the label you apply to people who demonstrate what an ignorant fool you are. Wry Catcher is the biggest fool in the forum.

You got some self awareness issues man. You may see yourself as this destroyer of liberals on this board but that's not how you come off. Wry had a pretty accurate description you. Start showing a little objectivity, comprehension of arguements, and substantive reenforcement of your statements and maybe people will take you more seriously

 

[bripat9643]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

She would be in prison if she hadn't deleted those emails.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

NBCNEWS: Full Clapper: 'No Evidence' of Collusion Between Trump and Russia

 

[Aries]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

I just wonder why no one cared about every other politician who's done the same since the WH server went in. Most notably sitting president bush. Selective memory or is it a female thing?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

So where is the evidence that anyone in the Trump administration broke these laws?

On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence that people in the Obama administration broke laws against unmasking American citizens and then leaking that information to the press.

trump himself, on live tv, asked for russia to hack hillary's emails. I think that falls under "urging them to complete the crime" conspiracy.

Wrong again, you lying douche bag. In the first place, it was a joke. And he said they should release them if they had them. He didn't ask them to commit a crime.

I know being honest will not advance your agenda, but try not to be so obvious about your lies.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

I just wonder why no one cared about every other politician who's done the same since the WH server went in. Most notably sitting president bush. Selective memory or is it a female thing?

They weren't under a court order to preserve their emails, moron.

 

[Aries]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

So where is the evidence that anyone in the Trump administration broke these laws?

On the other hand, there is irrefutable evidence that people in the Obama administration broke laws against unmasking American citizens and then leaking that information to the press.

trump himself, on live tv, asked for russia to hack hillary's emails. I think that falls under "urging them to complete the crime" conspiracy.

Wrong again, you lying douche bag. In the first place, it was a joke. And he said they should release them if they had them. He didn't ask them to commit a crime.

I know being honest will not advance your agenda, but try not to be so obvious about your lies.

it was a joke?


lol you are as gullible as a goldfish.
Just keep swimming, just keep swimming, just keep swimming.

 

[radical right]

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.

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

 

[Ame®icano]

Who said Clapper cleared Trump?

Stop playing stupid, it's right here.

No evidence ... Clapper said it

NBCNEWS: Full Clapper: 'No Evidence' of Collusion Between Trump and Russia

What, he didn't said it?

 

[Thinker101]

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.

1) the really bad shit is presumed to be something obtained illegally by electronic or other means. 18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited. BUT not in violation of that law because it was only intercepted but not disclosed

Followed by the associate urging them to complete the crime, which would be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

I just wonder why no one cared about every other politician who's done the same since the WH server went in. Most notably sitting president bush. Selective memory or is it a female thing?

A couple of differences, the Bush administration had two email accounts, one for official government business and another for Republican National Committee business, and Bush didn't have his own personal email server.