The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

So how exactly do you conspire with a crime, after the fact, when there is no proof it ever happened? As far as we know right now, no one has the emails missing from her server.

.

See the criminal "hit man" murder statutes. Somebody soliciting another person to commit murder, is guilty of murder, even if the hit man didn't carry out the crime.

 

[OKTexas]

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?.

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.

Your own reference to the Russian telling the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate", "...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." That was the ACTION that caused the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant to cross the line of criminality in your HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

The "bad shit" you wrote about certainly implied something detrimental to Clinton's campaign, and not how amazing her hair was or her outstanding figure! And why would the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant NOT be interested with HYPOTHETICALLY damaging the Clinton campaign via a third party which would likely be harder to backtrack as the culprit? Is it likely that the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant would want to enhance Clinton's campaign, really? I wasn't born yesterday and neither were you!

You're doing nothing other than trying to dodge and deflect to avoid the fact of accepting that the American hero in your two sentence "play" would have violated the law in the real world based solely on his ACTIONS. You've tried four (4) different ploys now with me alone to wiggle out from under the weight you placed upon yourself trying to entrap others to puff up your own damaged ego.

You should have shown some character and grace and accepted the inevitable. Now, you're just appearing desperate, Tex. Time to man up!

To this point I've addressed every thing you've brought up, you refuse to accept what I've said, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue go over the same topics again and again. Have a nice day.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

.

Tell us by what LEGAL means the russians could obtain information on Hillary Clinton that they would be in sole possession of. What would be the nature of the information, and how would a foreign state was able to get what the FOIA denies.

How many times did she meet with Russian reps during her tenure as SOS or as a candidate either in the 2008 or 2016 campaigns? Do you know what might have been said in any of those, I don't with the exception of what was reported and no one knows if the reporting was a full disclosure or even accurate.

.

 

[charwin95]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...

To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.

So what law was broken, quote the law.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Hacking computers is a crime, regardless of whether it is related to an election. However, there's no evidence that anything published by Wikileaks is the result of Russian hacking. None of you snowflakes have ever posted a single piece of evidence that Russia is behind the Wikileaks releases.

Actually Trump admitted admitted that Russian did the hacking when they showed him the evidence last Jan. 11, 2017. This was even posted over and over by several members.

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence community

Trump admitted to nothing except an opinion that he thought it was the Russians. A lot of people thought it was Russians.

The whole hacking crap is stupid. What happened?

John Podesta fell for a common phishing scheme getting him to click on a phony link. This revealed that his password was "password". Then in a remarkable display of utter stupidity, he didn't change his password. The non hacker hackers who might have been ten years old, learned that the DNC was crooked. Bernie Sanders was screwed over, Donna Brazile was given the debate questions by CNN.

Everything that happened was the fault of the Democrats. Now they want to blame the Russians. Nope.

That is your interpretation of denial. Read the last NK again. Also ask the Republicans who are also doing several investigations against Trump.
Quote me again until you get it right.

 

[charwin95]

So if someone hack Trump tax returns exposing his corruptness ------ Is that supposed to be acceptable?

Interesting twist. They claim no criminality by being a co conspirator with the russians, yet they would jump all over somebody releasing stolen Trump tax returns.

"Co-conspirator" to what? You are a fucking joke.

So if someone hack Trump tax returns is that supposed to be acceptable?
Because your buddies here that hacking Hillary email was supposed to be legal.
Explain that?

 

[charwin95]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...

To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.

So what law was broken, quote the law.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Hacking computers is a crime, regardless of whether it is related to an election. However, there's no evidence that anything published by Wikileaks is the result of Russian hacking. None of you snowflakes have ever posted a single piece of evidence that Russia is behind the Wikileaks releases.

Actually Trump admitted admitted that Russian did the hacking when they showed him the evidence last Jan. 11, 2017. This was even posted over and over by several members.

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence community

When the Russians did what hacking? No specific incidents have ever been mentioned. Your dealing in smoke and mirrors.

Ask the FBI and the senate intelligence committee.

 

[OKTexas]

So how exactly do you conspire with a crime, after the fact, when there is no proof it ever happened? As far as we know right now, no one has the emails missing from her server.

.

See the criminal "hit man" murder statutes. Somebody soliciting another person to commit murder, is guilty of murder, even if the hit man didn't carry out the crime.

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand what "after the fact" means.

.

 

[charwin95]

“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.

so what happened to obummer's investigation of it?

Obama said he had a country to save from Bush's recession, and financial collapse, 700,000 jobs lost a month, and a $1.5 trillion deficit. Obama didn't go after many of Bush's crimes because he had bigger more important problems.

well four americans died on hitlery's watch. I want to see the emails from benghazi but I can't cause hitlery had them deleted. intent. sorry. hitlery to jail.

After 2 years and $7 millions wasted in this investigation------- Trey Gowdy a republican that led the investigation didn't find anything to prosecute Hillary. You are hopeless.

How much are they wasting on this "Russian hack" faux scandal?

I don't know because they have not come out with the figures.
Ask your buddies why they keep mentioning Benghazi which is dead and the case was closed by the GOPs.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong, moron. Asking them to release any emails they might have obtained is not a violation of 18 USC 2511 or any other law.

 

[Darkwind]

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

The Democrat party is not our government.

 

[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?

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

In other words, Clapper wasn't aware of any evidence against Trump.

That's what we've been saying all along, dumbass.

 

[charwin95]

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?

.

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...

To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.

So what law was broken, quote the law.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Please quote the statute. BTW would that include secretly recording closed campaign strategy meetings and releasing it, like they did to Mitt?

.

What is Mitt has anything to do with hacking by a foreign adversaries?

 

[whitehall]

What if a member of the Obama administration used her political power to ensure that Russia would get a good deal in the sale of uranium mining claims? To paraphrase a popular psychological cliche, "If a democrat falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound"? Think about it.

 

[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?

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

Consider this from one of my earlier posts.

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

.

To a snowflake "no evidence" means they just have to dig even harder and longer.

 

[radical right]

To this point I've addressed every thing you've brought up, you refuse to accept what I've said, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue go over the same topics again and again. Have a nice day.

.

How about finishing Constitution Article 1 section 6, where a congress person can be charged with treason for something he says from the well of the senate. But you would have to show how the clause (after the semi-colon) isn't a separate thought, connected to the main. insted of being

Main, 1st clause, more of 1st clause; 2nd clause.

 

[charwin95]

Conspiracy

Really? What exactly did the conspire to do?

.

That is what the investigations are all about. You asked what laws may have been broken. Change your hypothetical scenario to include other meetings where the Russians may have mentioned some kind of cooperation with a trump administration with sanctions. If the trump administration or campaign official showed a willingness to cooperate and a later representative met with the Russians and got an offer or suggestion that illegally obtained emails would be leaked, that would be a conspiracy to obtain or have use of illegally obtained espionage products, hence, a criminal conspiracy. I am not trying to argue the merits of the case, rather, answering your original question about what law may have been violated.

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper 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.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

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

.

Look at the dates between those 2 links.

 

[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

The Democrat party is not our government.

Undermining the integrity of an election does effect our government and would be considered a treasonous act

 

[bripat9643]

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

.

Tell us by what LEGAL means the russians could obtain information on Hillary Clinton that they would be in sole possession of. What would be the nature of the information, and how would a foreign state was able to get what the FOIA denies.

It doesn't matter whether it was obtained legally or not, if they publish it, then Trump is free to use it.

 

[Kondor3]

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?

.

Mine good colleague...

Have you not yet grown tired of making excuses for your Mistaken Vote?

I would have thought that the Embarrassment Factor by itself would have been enough to put you right off your lunch by now.

 

[bripat9643]

So how exactly do you conspire with a crime, after the fact, when there is no proof it ever happened? As far as we know right now, no one has the emails missing from her server.

.

See the criminal "hit man" murder statutes. Somebody soliciting another person to commit murder, is guilty of murder, even if the hit man didn't carry out the crime.

Trump didn't solicit anyone to hack Hillary's server, bonehead.