The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

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

I was answering his hypothetical.

Take a nap.

 

[Ame®icano]

"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.

I have no control over Youtube titles. If you actually listen what he said, it's definitely not what you quoted.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If you believe Wry described anything accurately, then you're a fool. Wry is the biggest boob in the forum. Almost everything she says can be proved untrue within seconds. Objectivity and Wry Catcher are mutually exclusive.

You should try a little honesty and some courses in logic.

 

[yiostheoy]

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia

 

[bripat9643]

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

I was answering his hypothetical.

Take a nap.

"Hypothetically," if someone blew up New York with a nuke, they would be guilty of treason. What's the point of mentioning that?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Liar.

Nope, he didn't.

 

[radical right]

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

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

You said Hillary should be in jail because she did delete 33,000 e-mails. Between the two of you, you're saying Hillary should be in jail no matter what she did.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Once again, the DNC, Podesta or the hildabitch are NOT the United States. The United States includes the federal government or one of its agencies.

.

 

[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?

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.

oh, come on, it wasn't that long ago- brush up on your facts and get back to me.


"Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”
George W. Bush's White House "lost" 22 million emails
Missing White House Emails

 

[bripat9643]

And people wonder why Hillary deleted 33,000 emails.

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

You said Hillary should be in jail because she did delete 33,000 e-mails. Between the two of you, you're saying Hillary should be in jail no matter what she did.

No, I said she would be in jail if she hadn't deleted them because they undoubtedly contained a ton a of incriminating information. The ones she didn't delete were bad enough. However, deleting them is a crime since she was under court order to preserve them.

 

[Slade3200]

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

If you believe Wry described anything accurately, then you're a fool. Wry is the biggest boob in the forum. Almost everything she says can be proved untrue within seconds. Objectivity and Wry Catcher are mutually exclusive.

You should try a little honesty and some courses in logic.

Did I say she was objective? No. All I said was that she described you accurately. Work on your comprehension and don't put words in my mouth. I don't know her well enough to make a judgement, but I've seen enough of you to know you fit the same description as you accuse her of. Don't be a hypocrite, it's never to late to grow up

 

[Aries]

"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.

I have no control over Youtube titles. If you actually listen what he said, it's definitely not what you quoted.

not word for word. The meaning and intention is exactly what I quoted.
Too literal to function?

 

[bripat9643]

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

If you believe Wry described anything accurately, then you're a fool. Wry is the biggest boob in the forum. Almost everything she says can be proved untrue within seconds. Objectivity and Wry Catcher are mutually exclusive.

You should try a little honesty and some courses in logic.

Did I say she was objective? No. All I said was that she described you accurately. Work on your comprehension and don't put words in my mouth. I don't know her well enough to make a judgement, but I've seen enough of you to know you fit the same description as you accuse her of. Don't be a hypocrite, it's never to late to grow up

You're simply a boob who can be written off as ridiculous if you are on the same side as Wry Catcher. You think you are smart, but you're no smarter than any of the other snowflakes in here, and that is a very low bar to get over. Don't be a hypocrite: admit that you're just another partisan leftwing hack.

 

[OKTexas]

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, he simply asked, if they had them to release them, big difference. The server at that point had already been taken off line and wiped, there was nothing to hack. They were never released BTW. If Russia has them they were probably holding them for use against the bitch in case she won.

.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

I have no control over Youtube titles. If you actually listen what he said, it's definitely not what you quoted.

not word for word. The meaning and intention is exactly what I quoted.
Too literal to function?

"Not word for word" means, no, he didn't say that.

 

[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, he simply asked, if they had them to release them, big difference. The server at that point had already been taken off line and wiped, there was nothing to hack. They were never released BTW. If Russia has them they were probably holding them for use against the bitch in case she won.

.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell them, they keep repeating the same lies over and over. Why throw away a good lie if even a few people haven't heard it yet?

 

[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!

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.

There you go again trying to step OUTSIDE the borders of your own HYPOTHETICAL scenario!

It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference WHEN the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" learned of the information...none whatsoever! It was the ACTION of the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" after LEARNING of that information from the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to discuss and encourage the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to disclose that information at a specific time that would be violative of 18 U.S. Code § 953 within the confines of YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. Below is that HYPOTHETICAL "what if" from your OP for your review, given you appear to have completely <edit> forgotten <edit> what you wrote!

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.

Again:
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!

 

[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, he simply asked, if they had them to release them, big difference. The server at that point had already been taken off line and wiped, there was nothing to hack. They were never released BTW. If Russia has them they were probably holding them for use against the bitch in case she won.

.

If they were going to hold them incase she won why were they released upon trumpies request?

 

[Slade3200]

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

If you believe Wry described anything accurately, then you're a fool. Wry is the biggest boob in the forum. Almost everything she says can be proved untrue within seconds. Objectivity and Wry Catcher are mutually exclusive.

You should try a little honesty and some courses in logic.

Did I say she was objective? No. All I said was that she described you accurately. Work on your comprehension and don't put words in my mouth. I don't know her well enough to make a judgement, but I've seen enough of you to know you fit the same description as you accuse her of. Don't be a hypocrite, it's never to late to grow up

You're simply a boob who can be written off as ridiculous if you are on the same side as Wry Catcher. You think you are smart, but you're no smarter than any of the other snowflakes in here, and that is a very low bar to get over. Don't be a hypocrite: admit that you're just another partisan leftwing hack.

Again you make false assumptions, I believe that makes you the boob. I don't think I am smarter than any other person. I know what I know and am always open to learning more. I also recognize what I don't know.

I've got plenty of critiques for both the left and right and have called out partisan corruption of both Dems and Reps. So you don't really know what your talking about... big surprise.

Don't think, just attack, thats what you do when you're Bripat...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

There you go again trying to step OUTSIDE the borders of your own HYPOTHETICAL scenario!

It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference WHEN the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" learned of the information...none whatsoever! It was the ACTION of the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" after LEARNING of that information from the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to discuss and encourage the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to disclose that information at a specific time that would be violative of 18 U.S. Code § 953 within the confines of YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. Below is that HYPOTHETICAL "what if" from your OP for your review, given you appear to have completely <edit> forgotten <edit> what you wrote!

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.

Again:
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!

Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?

.