The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[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

The word "undermining" is utterly meaningless.

Is publishing lies about the candidates "undermining" the election?

I guess that depends on intent. But yes, I think they could be.. it's a good debate to explore where the boundaries of free speech and freedom of the press are when lies are printed.

 

[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

The integrity of our election is intact. Publishing information about a candidate (written by that candidate or her minions) does not harm the integrity of our elections. Unless of course, you are willing to stipulate that the media also acts in a treasonous way.

Hacking email accounts and hiring trolls to release a flood of misinformation is pushing the limits. You really don't think so?

 

[Slade3200]

Probably, just as the conservative media would cover it 24/7, just like Benghazi. We live in a grossly partisan and divided country and it is polluting our political system.

You mean one cable network would cover it? Yeah, that is exactly equivalent!

You mean the biggest news media cable network in our country? Yeah that one

The biggest cable news outlet Is still considerably smaller than ABC, CBS and NBC

So what? Start another conservative station then. It's a free country

That doesn't alter the fact that ABC, CBS and NBC are far bigger than FOX.

So what's your point? The free market has produced more liberal media networks than conservative?

 

[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

If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason.

Spreading false information about Hillary is treason?

What'd they say, "She's the most qualified candidate for President, ever"?

Talk about false info.

Can you really not distinguish between the statement you put down and what I was talking about?

 

[bripat9643]

If you read the scenario again you'll see that the Trump associate intercepted nothing and disclosed nothing, that was done by the other guy.

.

Hence the conspiracy violation 18 USC 371. Where all conspirators are guilty of the crimes performed by any one of them.

each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Which Trump campaign member "conspired" with any hackers? Do you have any evidence of any of your sinister accusations?

Well it could be anyone of them--but it all started in Cleveland during the RNC Convention--and these are names we've heard before.

Kushner's involvement in a meeting was first reported by The New Yorker, and Flynn's by The New York Times.

The administration official disputed the idea that accepting a meeting with the Russian ambassador could be cause for concern in light of the discussion about Russian meddling in the US election, characterizing the meeting as merely an attempt to meet key international players during the transition to power.

Then this:

"Another national security adviser to the Trump campaign, J.D. Gordon, also disclosed Thursday that he had met with Kislyak, this time during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. That meeting was first reported by USA Today.

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia.

Then at this same time--Republican Convention, Cleveland in July, 2016 and long before they were even close to winning an election they decided to write foreign policy with the Russian Ambassador.

"Gordon had advocated for language in the GOP platform that the Ukrainians not be armed in their battle against pro-Russian separatists, an effort was ultimately successful. But Gordon says he was simply advocating what Trump himself had expressed -- that he did not wish to see major war break out over the situation in Ukraine."
More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com

This information came out only (AFTER Flynn was busted and only AFTER Session's lied under to Oath to congress and only AFTER the Trump administration denied 5 times that they had contact with any Russians during the campaign season.)
Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

This sent off a tornado siren to every intelligence agency in this country, including abroad. Which is when Comey testified that the FBI started it's investigation into the Trump campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0

Then this comes out: Shep Smith states that they have phone records of Trump surrogates being on the phone not only with the Russian ambassador, but Russian intelligence agents, including the "very day" that the DNC databases were being hacked into.



CNN confirms it

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

John McCain wants to know why the "we will not arm the Ukranians against pro-Russian separtists" was put into the Republican Platform.



Adam Schiff cochair of the House intelligence committee states there is MORE than circumstantial evidence.



Right now there are Grand Jury Subpoenas against General Michael Flynn--who has already requested immunity from prosecution, with his lawyers stating "he has a story to tell."
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/michael-flynn-congress-immunity-russia.html

Right now the special task force within the Treasury department is looking for money laundering and shell corporations- Paul Manafort's name is mentioned in this also--who was in charge of the Trump campaign-and they're also tracking back to see who PAID the Russian hackers.
Paul Manafort’s finances, alliance with Trump draw Treasury, Justice, FBI eyes

One of Comey's comments about 1-1/2 months ago in front of a Senate hearing--he made this comment: "It's as if they didn't even care if they got caught." That can only mean one thing--they've been caught.

This by no means is going away anytime soon.

So you believe a GOP Platform debate is treason? Is that what you're left with here? Do YOU favor arming the Ukranians? Is it DEBATABLE? Should be. Without hysteria about Russian collusion FOR WHICH (on the platform issue) you have NONE..

Just like the rest of this paranoid delusion that's wasting everybody's time...

You should be investigating the DNC ties to Russian influence because CLEARLY the Ukranian policy they ENACTED was not largely different from this GOP platform plank.

Arming Ukraine: Where the 2016 Hopefuls Stand

President Barack Obama has so far resisted appeals from the beleaguered Ukrainian military to provide lethal aid such as small arms, ammunition, and anti-tank weaponry—though he has the authority to do so under a law he signed last year. President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers from both parties, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former diplomats and defense officials have all urged him to consider reversing course.

The former secretary of state and architect of the Russian "reset" policy, who has largely shunned public appearances in the last few months aside from the occasional paid speech, did comment on the Ukraine crisis last month. Clinton said she supported "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government" during a paid speaking engagement in Winnipeg, Canada, as well as "new equipment, new training for the Ukrainians." She did not specify whether that "equipment" should include lethal arms.

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Obviously those 2 DEMS were talking with Russians CONSTANTLY. And the Uranium give away approved by Mrs WhoreHopper is a MUCH clearer conflict of interest than anything you're mentioning. PLUS her campaign manager was LOBBYING for SberBank in Russia that literally OWNS 1/3 of the Russian economy..

If you're paranoid about Russians -- Let's investigate it all. That way --- the kind of question asked in this OP is APPLIED EQUALLY to both primitive warring tribes....

What an ELECTED (already won the election and is sworn into office) President does with Foreign policy is routine.

But no campaign in the middle of a campaign season has ever sat across the table from a Foreign adversary to write foreign policy. (Russians can't vote, nor can they make campaign donations.) Meaning there is absolutely no reason to meet or talk with them at that time.

It is the REASON that sent up the red flags to every intelligence agency in this country & Russian phone lines were wire tapped. Where anyone they were calling and anyone who was calling them was being wiretaped. Clearly they have a lot of contact with Trump surrogates & Russians during the campaign season.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0

Furthermore the Trump administration DENIED 5 TIMES that they had any contact with Russians during the campaign season.
Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

According to Shep Smith's video--they were on the phone not only the Russian Ambassador but Russian intelligence agents, including the very day that DNC databases were getting hacked into.

Wrong. Hillary losing and the resulting mass hysteria of the snowflakes is the only reason that occurred.

The Trump administration denied it? You mean a couple of people denied it. The contacts were totally benign. There's no "there" there.

You're a fucking retard.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is that evidence of collusion?

No evidence - Deputy AG said it, AG said it, Clapper said it, it only exist in butthurt leftist heads that can't get over the fact they lost the elections fair and square.

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?

LOL, are you tying to be funny?

It seems you got the point. Why don't you answer than?

When a crime is committed, what happens first? LE is called, and LE begins to investigate. That is what is on going, and that is what will lead to a conclusion.

What crime was committed, asshole?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

The integrity of our election is intact. Publishing information about a candidate (written by that candidate or her minions) does not harm the integrity of our elections. Unless of course, you are willing to stipulate that the media also acts in a treasonous way.

One need simply ask the brain-dead drones to give examples of the information from the alleged 'leaks' that the electorate had not known about the career criminal and congenital liar prior to those pretend leaks.


BTW....in 1996 Bill's wife was called a congenital liar in none other than the NYTimes.
Essay;Blizzard of Lies

 

[postman]

What crime was committed, asshole?

Logan Act, Cyber Terrorism, Computer Intrusion, Intercepting Communications, and Conspiracy to aid and abet the previous four crimes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

LOL, are you tying to be funny?

It seems you got the point. Why don't you answer than?

When a crime is committed, what happens first? LE is called, and LE begins to investigate. That is what is on going, and that is what will lead to a conclusion.

What crime was committed, asshole?

First I must correct the manner in which you sign your post, asshole should follow the text.

Your comment suggests reading and comprehending are not a special skill you've honed. Russian influence in our election may not be a crime per se, but colluding with Russia occurred - even a lying hack like you cannot escape that truth. Flynn, Manafort, Tillerson, Ross and his son-in-law all have a shadow over their connections with Russia.

What connects them with Russian officials - before and after the election, and before Jan 20th should concern all Americans, even fools like you. My speculation is money, money and money - an oligarchy of plutocrats run Russia, and if one looks at the cabinet Trump put together, and compares the wealth of those today, with the wealth of those who served in Obama's cabinet, an honest person will be stunned.

 

[postman]

BTW....in 1996 Bill's wife was called a congenital liar in none other than the NYTimes.
Essay;Blizzard of Lies

That's because up until Bush, and nowTrump, they had the bar set very low. Back in 1996 the NYT's probably said the DOW rising 1,000 points in a year was something that could only happen once in a lifetime. Recalibrating to the new reality is nothing new. Back in 1996 more people voted for Bill Clinton than owned cellphones.

 

[postman]

...and if one looks at the cabinet Trump put together, and compares the wealth of those today, with the wealth of those who served in Obama's cabinet, an honest person will be stunned.

If one compares the Russian connections of those today, with the lack of any foreign connections of those who served in Obama's cabinet, an honest person will be stunned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW....in 1996 Bill's wife was called a congenital liar in none other than the NYTimes.
Essay;Blizzard of Lies

That's because up until Bush, and nowTrump, they had the bar set very low. Back in 1996 the NYT's probably said the DOW rising 1,000 points in a year was something that could only happen once in a lifetime. Recalibrating to the new reality is nothing new. Back in 1996 more people voted for Bill Clinton than owned cellphones.

Quite telling that you omitted this part:

One need simply ask the brain-dead drones to give examples of the information from the alleged 'leaks' that the electorate had not known about the career criminal and congenital liar prior to those pretend leaks.


Soo....we can conclude that the 'leaks' farrago is a total fake.

Your participation, although totally unnecessary, was duly noted, Lostman.

 

[postman]

Quite telling that you omitted this part:
.

I make one point at a time. I don't troll by repeating and reposting things ad infinitum like you do. One and done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Quite telling that you omitted this part:
.

I make one point at a time. I don't troll by repeating and reposting things ad infinitum

And then you post it TWICE????

Priceless.



BTW...
Quite telling that you omitted this part:

One need simply ask the brain-dead drones to give examples of the information from the alleged 'leaks' that the electorate had not known about the career criminal and congenital liar prior to those pretend leaks.


Soo....we can conclude that the 'leaks' farrago is a total fake.

Your participation, although totally unnecessary, was duly noted, Lostman.



Or....is it 'Loserman'????

 

[candycorn]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

I'm not sure it breaks any laws in the way you described.

However, what you're leaving out is whether or not the Russian representative broke the law to acquire the "really bad shit". If you're aware of US Laws being broken and do nothing about it and, in fact, seek to benefit from it...the electorate should be made aware that you have no respect for the law.

In this case, Roger Stone, a Trump Associate admits to interaction with Guccifer (the Russian hacker US intel concludes hacked Ms .Clinton's e-mails) and even tweeted that her campaign manager will "have his turn in the barrel" six weeks prior to the release of his hacked files. Why a man with the President's ear is chatting with a hacker is mind boggling in and of itself.... That the hacker is probably responsible for breaking the law and Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump did nothing about it...tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take our electoral process.

Nonsense. Let's be honest. Let's say someone burglarized a house. He finds evidence of kiddie porn. He is disgusted by what he sees. The burglar takes the evidence and leaves. He has committed a crime by breaking and entering. He has stolen property. Two crimes right there.

The next day the burglar mails the evidence to the police. He uses the address he robbed as the return address. The police receive the evidence and start on the way to getting the warrants.

They aren't colliding with the burglar. Or even this way. It is doubtful that the Trump Co folks met directly with Guccifier. If they met with anyone they met with a cut out. Someone who knows someone who knows someone else.

In Police Terminology a confidential informant.

Someone who hears things.

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?

Are you going after the hackers? Why are they less moral in your book than the burglar who mails the kiddie porn to the police? Yes they committed a crime. But as a mediating factor they exposed a more serious crime in the process.

What “crime” did the hackers expose?

Roger Stone (who Trump tweeted out of thin air about last night that “he hasn’t talked to in months’—gee wonder why he’s now distancing himself from Stoney???) had more than just a chance interaction with the hacker credited for hacking the DNC and foreshadowed another hack-job by some guy named Honey Bear or something like that… So he had foreknowledge..


Did any of the Trump enablers break the law? Doubtful.

But is this what you want from your Presidential candidates and their campaigns? People who are this shady to where they are holding conference with hackers and phishers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess for someone like you (jaded as you admit) it’s probably a matter of splitting hairs. But here’s the thing:

What these hackers did violates a US law. It’s a matter of jurisprudence.
What the DNC did and is alleged to do, violates their internal rules.

There is a difference there. The DNC is a private organization just like the GOP. The Democrats have had Superdelegates since (at least) 1988. Senator Sanders knew this. Now, feeding questions to Ms. Clinton is wrong by any standard. But the Superdelegate isn’t something that Mr. Sanders was unaware of.

 

[Rustic]

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

LOL, are you tying to be funny?

It seems you got the point. Why don't you answer than?

When a crime is committed, what happens first? LE is called, and LE begins to investigate. That is what is on going, and that is what will lead to a conclusion.

What crime was committed, asshole?

First I must correct the manner in which you sign your post, asshole should follow the text.

Your comment suggests reading and comprehending are not a special skill you've honed. Russian influence in our election may not be a crime per se, but colluding with Russia occurred - even a lying hack like you cannot escape that truth. Flynn, Manafort, Tillerson, Ross and his son-in-law all have a shadow over their connections with Russia.

What connects them with Russian officials - before and after the election, and before Jan 20th should concern all Americans, even fools like you. My speculation is money, money and money - an oligarchy of plutocrats run Russia, and if one looks at the cabinet Trump put together, and compares the wealth of those today, with the wealth of those who served in Obama's cabinet, an honest person will be stunned.

Where's the beef?

 

[candycorn]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

I'm not sure it breaks any laws in the way you described.

However, what you're leaving out is whether or not the Russian representative broke the law to acquire the "really bad shit". If you're aware of US Laws being broken and do nothing about it and, in fact, seek to benefit from it...the electorate should be made aware that you have no respect for the law.

In this case, Roger Stone, a Trump Associate admits to interaction with Guccifer (the Russian hacker US intel concludes hacked Ms .Clinton's e-mails) and even tweeted that her campaign manager will "have his turn in the barrel" six weeks prior to the release of his hacked files. Why a man with the President's ear is chatting with a hacker is mind boggling in and of itself.... That the hacker is probably responsible for breaking the law and Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump did nothing about it...tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take our electoral process.

Nonsense. Let's be honest. Let's say someone burglarized a house. He finds evidence of kiddie porn. He is disgusted by what he sees. The burglar takes the evidence and leaves. He has committed a crime by breaking and entering. He has stolen property. Two crimes right there.

The next day the burglar mails the evidence to the police. He uses the address he robbed as the return address. The police receive the evidence and start on the way to getting the warrants.

They aren't colliding with the burglar. Or even this way. It is doubtful that the Trump Co folks met directly with Guccifier. If they met with anyone they met with a cut out. Someone who knows someone who knows someone else.

In Police Terminology a confidential informant.

Someone who hears things.

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?

Are you going after the hackers? Why are they less moral in your book than the burglar who mails the kiddie porn to the police? Yes they committed a crime. But as a mediating factor they exposed a more serious crime in the process.

What “crime” did the hackers expose?

Roger Stone (who Trump tweeted out of thin air about last night that “he hasn’t talked to in months’—gee wonder why he’s now distancing himself from Stoney???) had more than just a chance interaction with the hacker credited for hacking the DNC and foreshadowed another hack-job by some guy named Honey Bear or something like that… So he had foreknowledge..


Did any of the Trump enablers break the law? Doubtful.

But is this what you want from your Presidential candidates and their campaigns? People who are this shady to where they are holding conference with hackers and phishers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess for someone like you (jaded as you admit) it’s probably a matter of splitting hairs. But here’s the thing:

What these hackers did violates a US law. It’s a matter of jurisprudence.
What the DNC did and is alleged to do, violates their internal rules.

There is a difference there. The DNC is a private organization just like the GOP. The Democrats have had Superdelegates since (at least) 1988. Senator Sanders knew this. Now, feeding questions to Ms. Clinton is wrong by any standard. But the Superdelegate isn’t something that Mr. Sanders was unaware of.

 

[postman]

I make one point at a time. I don't troll by repeating and reposting things ad infinitum

And then you post it TWICE????

Priceless

Some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit them on the ass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I make one point at a time. I don't troll by repeating and reposting things ad infinitum

And then you post it TWICE????

Priceless

Some people wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit them on the ass.

One need simply ask the brain-dead drones to give examples of the information from the alleged 'leaks' that the electorate had not known about the career criminal and congenital liar prior to those pretend leaks.


Soo....we can conclude that the 'leaks' farrago is a total fake.

Your participation, although totally unnecessary, was duly noted, Lostman.



Or....is it 'Loserman'????



You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.

 

[oreo]

Hence the conspiracy violation 18 USC 371. Where all conspirators are guilty of the crimes performed by any one of them.

each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Which Trump campaign member "conspired" with any hackers? Do you have any evidence of any of your sinister accusations?

Well it could be anyone of them--but it all started in Cleveland during the RNC Convention--and these are names we've heard before.

Kushner's involvement in a meeting was first reported by The New Yorker, and Flynn's by The New York Times.

The administration official disputed the idea that accepting a meeting with the Russian ambassador could be cause for concern in light of the discussion about Russian meddling in the US election, characterizing the meeting as merely an attempt to meet key international players during the transition to power.

Then this:

"Another national security adviser to the Trump campaign, J.D. Gordon, also disclosed Thursday that he had met with Kislyak, this time during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. That meeting was first reported by USA Today.

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia.

Then at this same time--Republican Convention, Cleveland in July, 2016 and long before they were even close to winning an election they decided to write foreign policy with the Russian Ambassador.

"Gordon had advocated for language in the GOP platform that the Ukrainians not be armed in their battle against pro-Russian separatists, an effort was ultimately successful. But Gordon says he was simply advocating what Trump himself had expressed -- that he did not wish to see major war break out over the situation in Ukraine."
More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com

This information came out only (AFTER Flynn was busted and only AFTER Session's lied under to Oath to congress and only AFTER the Trump administration denied 5 times that they had contact with any Russians during the campaign season.)
Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

This sent off a tornado siren to every intelligence agency in this country, including abroad. Which is when Comey testified that the FBI started it's investigation into the Trump campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0

Then this comes out: Shep Smith states that they have phone records of Trump surrogates being on the phone not only with the Russian ambassador, but Russian intelligence agents, including the "very day" that the DNC databases were being hacked into.



CNN confirms it

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

John McCain wants to know why the "we will not arm the Ukranians against pro-Russian separtists" was put into the Republican Platform.



Adam Schiff cochair of the House intelligence committee states there is MORE than circumstantial evidence.



Right now there are Grand Jury Subpoenas against General Michael Flynn--who has already requested immunity from prosecution, with his lawyers stating "he has a story to tell."
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/michael-flynn-congress-immunity-russia.html

Right now the special task force within the Treasury department is looking for money laundering and shell corporations- Paul Manafort's name is mentioned in this also--who was in charge of the Trump campaign-and they're also tracking back to see who PAID the Russian hackers.
Paul Manafort’s finances, alliance with Trump draw Treasury, Justice, FBI eyes

One of Comey's comments about 1-1/2 months ago in front of a Senate hearing--he made this comment: "It's as if they didn't even care if they got caught." That can only mean one thing--they've been caught.

This by no means is going away anytime soon.

So you believe a GOP Platform debate is treason? Is that what you're left with here? Do YOU favor arming the Ukranians? Is it DEBATABLE? Should be. Without hysteria about Russian collusion FOR WHICH (on the platform issue) you have NONE..

Just like the rest of this paranoid delusion that's wasting everybody's time...

You should be investigating the DNC ties to Russian influence because CLEARLY the Ukranian policy they ENACTED was not largely different from this GOP platform plank.

Arming Ukraine: Where the 2016 Hopefuls Stand

President Barack Obama has so far resisted appeals from the beleaguered Ukrainian military to provide lethal aid such as small arms, ammunition, and anti-tank weaponry—though he has the authority to do so under a law he signed last year. President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers from both parties, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former diplomats and defense officials have all urged him to consider reversing course.

The former secretary of state and architect of the Russian "reset" policy, who has largely shunned public appearances in the last few months aside from the occasional paid speech, did comment on the Ukraine crisis last month. Clinton said she supported "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government" during a paid speaking engagement in Winnipeg, Canada, as well as "new equipment, new training for the Ukrainians." She did not specify whether that "equipment" should include lethal arms.

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Obviously those 2 DEMS were talking with Russians CONSTANTLY. And the Uranium give away approved by Mrs WhoreHopper is a MUCH clearer conflict of interest than anything you're mentioning. PLUS her campaign manager was LOBBYING for SberBank in Russia that literally OWNS 1/3 of the Russian economy..

If you're paranoid about Russians -- Let's investigate it all. That way --- the kind of question asked in this OP is APPLIED EQUALLY to both primitive warring tribes....

Obviously those 2 DEMS were talking with Russians CONSTANTLY. And the Uranium give away approved by Mrs WhoreHopper is a MUCH clearer conflict of interest than anything you're mentioning. PLUS her campaign manager was LOBBYING for SberBank in Russia that literally OWNS 1/3 of the Russian economy..

YOU lost all credibility in this 1 paragraph because it is 100% inaccurate and not true....which you easily could have informed yourself by factchecking this partisan rightwing, ignorant, regurgitated by thoughtless pawns, tripe.

come onnnnn, you are better than that flacal!

We've done that part before. And you're unable to point out any inaccuracies. Can't do this here again. Call it a draw. Not the topic of the thread. The SberBank/Podesta Group connection is matter of public record. And it is a serious conflict of interest.

Russia's Largest Bank Confirms Hiring Podesta Group To Lobby For Ending Sanctions | Zero Hedge

OWNS 1/3 of EVERYTHING VALUABLE IN RUSSIA...

Take me to the Bull Ring and we'll hash out my inaccuracies one on one... I crave your attention you know..

You can talk and blow until your blue in the face and try to spin this toward John Podesta and Hillary Clinton but ALL eyeballs are focused on DONALD TRUMP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

Most Americans had made up their minds, snowflakes were going to vote Democrat no matter what. There wasn't much revealed that people did not already know or did not surprise them about democrats.

Hillary was the worst candidate in US history...that's the real problem with Hillary, not what was released about her.

To begin with, her name should never have been allowed on the ballot on election day anyway for being under MULTIPLE FBI investigations for crimes to conclude ESPIONAGE just days before the election.

As has been since revealed, Trump was also under investigation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

Most Americans had made up their minds, snowflakes were going to vote Democrat no matter what. There wasn't much revealed that people did not already know or did not surprise them about democrats.

Hillary was the worst candidate in US history...that's the real problem with Hillary, not what was released about her.

To begin with, her name should never have been allowed on the ballot on election day anyway for being under MULTIPLE FBI investigations for crimes to conclude ESPIONAGE just days before the election.

As has been since revealed, Trump was also under investigation.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

I knew she was a terrible candidate and I HOPED they would help keep her out of the White House. I did not, however, think they alone would cause enough problems to derail her attempt to stumble to the throne. Given what I saw from her partisans on this board, you would have thought the only issue was that someone broke into the DNC's computers, and the emails themselves were inconsequential. Apparently, they were very wrong.

Lesson learned, secure your data. Even better, don't keep stupidity around to be found.

1. Don't put classified information on an unclassified, unencrypted computer.

2. Don't use 'password' as your password

3. Don't give access to e-mails / information / usernames/passwords to the information to those who don't have clearances, need to know, etc...like maids and terrorist-connected Pakistani Spies under investigation for espionage.

So you think burglars are innocent if you left your front door unlocked?

Goddam that's funny.

 

[postman]

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?.

It would be a conspiracy, if any of the people involved colluded, and and in any way aided or abetted the crime. Think of it like the felony murder rule. Where the unarmed person driving the getaway car, or acting as a lookout, in a robbery where one of the thieves kills someone, is equally guilty of murder.

 

[postman]

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?.

It would be a conspiracy, if any of the people involved colluded, and and in any way aided or abetted the crime. Think of it like the felony murder rule. Where the person driving the getaway car in a robbery where one of the thieves kills someone, is equally guilty of murder.

 

[oreo]

Hence the conspiracy violation 18 USC 371. Where all conspirators are guilty of the crimes performed by any one of them.

each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Which Trump campaign member "conspired" with any hackers? Do you have any evidence of any of your sinister accusations?

Well it could be anyone of them--but it all started in Cleveland during the RNC Convention--and these are names we've heard before.

Kushner's involvement in a meeting was first reported by The New Yorker, and Flynn's by The New York Times.

The administration official disputed the idea that accepting a meeting with the Russian ambassador could be cause for concern in light of the discussion about Russian meddling in the US election, characterizing the meeting as merely an attempt to meet key international players during the transition to power.

Then this:

"Another national security adviser to the Trump campaign, J.D. Gordon, also disclosed Thursday that he had met with Kislyak, this time during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July. That meeting was first reported by USA Today.

Gordon told CNN that along with national security advisers Carter Page and Walid Phares, Gordon stressed to the Russian envoy that he would like to improve relations with Russia.

Then at this same time--Republican Convention, Cleveland in July, 2016 and long before they were even close to winning an election they decided to write foreign policy with the Russian Ambassador.

"Gordon had advocated for language in the GOP platform that the Ukrainians not be armed in their battle against pro-Russian separatists, an effort was ultimately successful. But Gordon says he was simply advocating what Trump himself had expressed -- that he did not wish to see major war break out over the situation in Ukraine."
More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com

This information came out only (AFTER Flynn was busted and only AFTER Session's lied under to Oath to congress and only AFTER the Trump administration denied 5 times that they had contact with any Russians during the campaign season.)
Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

This sent off a tornado siren to every intelligence agency in this country, including abroad. Which is when Comey testified that the FBI started it's investigation into the Trump campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/fbi-investigation-trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0

Then this comes out: Shep Smith states that they have phone records of Trump surrogates being on the phone not only with the Russian ambassador, but Russian intelligence agents, including the "very day" that the DNC databases were being hacked into.



CNN confirms it

Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

John McCain wants to know why the "we will not arm the Ukranians against pro-Russian separtists" was put into the Republican Platform.



Adam Schiff cochair of the House intelligence committee states there is MORE than circumstantial evidence.



Right now there are Grand Jury Subpoenas against General Michael Flynn--who has already requested immunity from prosecution, with his lawyers stating "he has a story to tell."
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/michael-flynn-congress-immunity-russia.html

Right now the special task force within the Treasury department is looking for money laundering and shell corporations- Paul Manafort's name is mentioned in this also--who was in charge of the Trump campaign-and they're also tracking back to see who PAID the Russian hackers.
Paul Manafort’s finances, alliance with Trump draw Treasury, Justice, FBI eyes

One of Comey's comments about 1-1/2 months ago in front of a Senate hearing--he made this comment: "It's as if they didn't even care if they got caught." That can only mean one thing--they've been caught.

This by no means is going away anytime soon.

So you believe a GOP Platform debate is treason? Is that what you're left with here? Do YOU favor arming the Ukranians? Is it DEBATABLE? Should be. Without hysteria about Russian collusion FOR WHICH (on the platform issue) you have NONE..

Just like the rest of this paranoid delusion that's wasting everybody's time...

You should be investigating the DNC ties to Russian influence because CLEARLY the Ukranian policy they ENACTED was not largely different from this GOP platform plank.

Arming Ukraine: Where the 2016 Hopefuls Stand

President Barack Obama has so far resisted appeals from the beleaguered Ukrainian military to provide lethal aid such as small arms, ammunition, and anti-tank weaponry—though he has the authority to do so under a law he signed last year. President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers from both parties, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former diplomats and defense officials have all urged him to consider reversing course.

The former secretary of state and architect of the Russian "reset" policy, who has largely shunned public appearances in the last few months aside from the occasional paid speech, did comment on the Ukraine crisis last month. Clinton said she supported "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government" during a paid speaking engagement in Winnipeg, Canada, as well as "new equipment, new training for the Ukrainians." She did not specify whether that "equipment" should include lethal arms.

A Clinton spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Obviously those 2 DEMS were talking with Russians CONSTANTLY. And the Uranium give away approved by Mrs WhoreHopper is a MUCH clearer conflict of interest than anything you're mentioning. PLUS her campaign manager was LOBBYING for SberBank in Russia that literally OWNS 1/3 of the Russian economy..

If you're paranoid about Russians -- Let's investigate it all. That way --- the kind of question asked in this OP is APPLIED EQUALLY to both primitive warring tribes....

Obviously those 2 DEMS were talking with Russians CONSTANTLY. And the Uranium give away approved by Mrs WhoreHopper is a MUCH clearer conflict of interest than anything you're mentioning. PLUS her campaign manager was LOBBYING for SberBank in Russia that literally OWNS 1/3 of the Russian economy..

YOU lost all credibility in this 1 paragraph because it is 100% inaccurate and not true....which you easily could have informed yourself by factchecking this partisan rightwing, ignorant, regurgitated by thoughtless pawns, tripe.

come onnnnn, you are better than that flacal!

We've done that part before. And you're unable to point out any inaccuracies. Can't do this here again. Call it a draw. Not the topic of the thread. The SberBank/Podesta Group connection is matter of public record. And it is a serious conflict of interest.

Russia's Largest Bank Confirms Hiring Podesta Group To Lobby For Ending Sanctions | Zero Hedge

OWNS 1/3 of EVERYTHING VALUABLE IN RUSSIA...

Take me to the Bull Ring and we'll hash out my inaccuracies one on one... I crave your attention you know..

You can talk until your blue in the face and try to spin this toward John Podesta and Hillary Clinton but all eyeballs are focused on Trump & Company.

If Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi it's not too hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & Lies when they take over in 2018. You'll also get a great education as to what that Emoluments clause in the Constitution is all about.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

Collusion with a Foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON.

Republicans have two options:
1. Remove Trump from office asap or
2. Burn the entire party down in 2018-2020 and beyond.