Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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 upYou 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"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.
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.
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.
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...
If they were going to hold them incase she won why were they released upon trumpies request?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.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.
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.
.
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.
Well I didn't vote for Hillary so another strike for Bripat... no point in arguing with you about what I think and how I feel. you are obviously being defensive and you have no credibility or accuracy with your off base presumptions.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.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 upYou 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.
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.
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...
ROFL! Of course you think you are smarter than other people. You think you're smarter than both me and Wry Catcher. That's why you take on that sanctimoni9us attitude.
Your belief that you aren't partisan is also a tell that shows your pretentions of superiority. Virtually all the boobs in here who claim to be non-partisan voted for Hillary.
"Hypothetically," if someone blew up New York with a nuke, they would be guilty of treason. What's the point of mentioning that?
Yeah, right. Don't tell us you voted for Trump.Well I didn't vote for Hillary so another strike for Bripat... no point in arguing with you about what I think and how I feel. you are obviously being defensive and you have no credibility or accuracy with your off base presumptions.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.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 upIf 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.
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.
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...
ROFL! Of course you think you are smarter than other people. You think you're smarter than both me and Wry Catcher. That's why you take on that sanctimoni9us attitude.
Your belief that you aren't partisan is also a tell that shows your pretentions of superiority. Virtually all the boobs in here who claim to be non-partisan voted for Hillary.
Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?
.
You mean that's not making war on the United States?"Hypothetically," if someone blew up New York with a nuke, they would be guilty of treason. What's the point of mentioning that?
Because that's not treason.
I won't... Neither of those two got my vote. But I guess that's just me being partisan, right?Yeah, right. Don't tell us you voted for Trump.Well I didn't vote for Hillary so another strike for Bripat... no point in arguing with you about what I think and how I feel. you are obviously being defensive and you have no credibility or accuracy with your off base presumptions.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.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.
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...
ROFL! Of course you think you are smarter than other people. You think you're smarter than both me and Wry Catcher. That's why you take on that sanctimoni9us attitude.
Your belief that you aren't partisan is also a tell that shows your pretentions of superiority. Virtually all the boobs in here who claim to be non-partisan voted for Hillary.
Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?
.
There is the presumption of obtaining it illegally, or everybody would already have it.
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?What in the Sam Hill are you talking about man?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.
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'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?
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.
.
There you go again trying to step OUTSIDE the borders of your own HYPOTHETICAL scenario!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.
.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;18 U.S. Code § 953, only applies to the US Government or its agencies, it's right there in the statute.
"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.
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?.
No, just as it doesn't have the full text of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in those 34 words. Again, you're quibbling to avoid admitting that the US citizen in your HYPOTHETICAL fantasy would have violated 18 U.S. Code § 953 by colluding with the foreign agent of your HYPOTHETICAL scenario. The specifics were not relayed, but that is immaterial given what was implied by yourself with your own bloody characterizations.Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?
Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?
.
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?
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.
.
By soliciting their release, that completed the crime of 18 USC 2511, and made the person a potential co-conspirator guilty of 18 USC 371.
Not really... you both seem to be taking the same positions but from opposite view points. Your critiques about each other are the same. So thy would make you no better than himI 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?What in the Sam Hill are you talking about man?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.
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.
It says I have good judgment.
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?
Trump said it in one of his tweets--LOL Clapper stated during the hearing last week he knew of no collusion--but yesterday clarifing himself--he stated in "his prior position he would not have been privy to any information regarding the investigation and what evidence was coming in." In fact he didn't even know that Trump and his campaign was under investigation since last July.
"James Klapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped."
James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence - CNNPolitics.com
Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.
Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.
“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.
“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.
“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.
Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign
