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.
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?
.
How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.
Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.
Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?
I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.
.
What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?
It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.
Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.
Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?
I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.
.
What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?
It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
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?
.
How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...
What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?
It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....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?
.
How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?
.
so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
I'm fine with it being a felony for both!
so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?
btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?
so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
I'm fine with it being a felony for both!
so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?
btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?
P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....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?
.
How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?
.
it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.
how did the washington post know then?Really? Got a link to the leaked transcripts or leaked tapes?sure they were leaked. where you been bubba?except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.
Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.
Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?
I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.
.
What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?
It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
for what?so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.
.
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
I'm fine with it being a felony for both!
so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?
btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?
I know they are different and different laws apply when discussing a civil servant and someone in the Military....Military having much stronger laws and harsher sentences than for civilians, for similar wrongs....so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..
the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...
No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
I'm fine with it being a felony for both!
so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?
btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?
Would releasing who was involved in the conversation and what was discussed not be a partial release of the transcripts regardless how it's formatted? And it's just as serious of a crime as releasing the entire transcripts, it's divulging classified information. You've never had a security clearance have you?
.
No, testimony came out that said that..... you DO NOT KNOW THAT about wikileaks, and that most of what was released could have been true, but there were insertions in to the leaked emails that were not true.P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?
.
it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.
Russia already had the material that was released, coordinating to effect the election is no more criminal than many of the dirty tricks used by people in the US. One thing you can say about Wikileaks is what they released was true. The same can't be said about US candidates and the news organizations that publicized their lies. Like what ever happened to the bimbo avalanche against Trump? They seem to have vanished as quickly as they appeared.
.
I know they are different and different laws apply when discussing a civil servant and someone in the Military....Military having much stronger laws and harsher sentences than for civilians, for similar wrongs....so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.
Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.
.
I'm fine with it being a felony for both!
so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?
btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?
Would releasing who was involved in the conversation and what was discussed not be a partial release of the transcripts regardless how it's formatted? And it's just as serious of a crime as releasing the entire transcripts, it's divulging classified information. You've never had a security clearance have you?
.
No, testimony came out that said that..... you DO NOT KNOW THAT about wikileaks, and that most of what was released could have been true, but there were insertions in to the leaked emails that were not true.P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?
Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?
.
it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.
Russia already had the material that was released, coordinating to effect the election is no more criminal than many of the dirty tricks used by people in the US. One thing you can say about Wikileaks is what they released was true. The same can't be said about US candidates and the news organizations that publicized their lies. Like what ever happened to the bimbo avalanche against Trump? They seem to have vanished as quickly as they appeared.
.
AND the articles that were highlighted by wikileaks did not include all emails regarding the topics they highlighted and had Russian initiated stories spread to the right wing media within hours or minutes of their releases by wiki leaks....
Like they highlighted the memo where Hillary asked about Parkinson disease, and the stories regurgitated in the right wing and social media was that Hillary HAD Parkinson's disease and was sick and was dying etc etc etc....
They did not included the emails of why she was asking about Parkinson's in the first place...so they could regurgitate their initial fake story....
they inserted an email that claimed Cain was picked as VP a year before he was picked, which was fake....
It's ok if you don't understand what it means, maybe you should let those that do understand handle business and you can work on watercolors or something like thatUseless drivel and a useless report. son that has absolutely nothing in it that proves any fking thing except someone's butt hurt crying of losing an election.You don't remember what started it? Here is a reminder... our intel agencies published a report showing that Russians interfered in our elections (see below). obama imposed sanctions. Flynn called the Russians and talked about those sanctions then lied about it, the VP and other Trump officials then lied to the American people about it. Then it was revealed that a handful of other Trump surrogates, including his son in law, spoke to the Russians after making statements that nobody had spoken to the Russians. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, it came out Flynn took money from the Russians for speaking and didn't disclose it... I could keep going but I think there is enough shadiness in the story to justify an investigationdude, just post up the original evidence that started all of this fake shit.Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?
We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
what does this mean?
"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment ; NSA has moderate confidence"
.
I have no idea what that means.
You keep dodging. I can't prove you wrong because I havent seen the intel. Those that have seen the intel, even those who are in the Trump administration have made public statements about the accuracy and seriousness of the report. So try again to answer a simple question. Why would they contradict your claims that this is a joke?So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right?So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right? So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously? I could make a list of other similar people in the Trump admin who feel the same way, but let's start simple. Please explainPartisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?
We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?
Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents
From the October Surprise to the Russian Hack of the Election, degradation was the correct call.
You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing
I can and I do.
they are privy to the classified information and you are not.
Pssst...Russians posted fake stories on Facebook to beat Hillary....shhhh.....classified.
why certainly. it is nothing but a joke. there is nothing of any evidence any fking place on earth. go ahead, prove me wrong.
How about you answer my question first and then I'll answer yours. You keep dodging my question about why a guy like Tillerson would acknowledge the seriousness of the Russian interference.So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right? So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously? I could make a list of other similar people in the Trump admin who feel the same way, but let's start simple. Please explainPartisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?
We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?
Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents
From the October Surprise to the Russian Hack of the Election, degradation was the correct call.
You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing
I can and I do.
they are privy to the classified information and you are not.
Pssst...Russians posted fake stories on Facebook to beat Hillary....shhhh.....classified.
So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right?
No. Some of the partisan idiots who take it seriously aren't lying.
So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously?
Laughing at idiots tends to trigger them.
Why don't you explain your theory of the election?
Did the Russians "hack the election"?
Did the Russians "spread fake news"?
Did any of their actions impact the election?
Which ones? How?
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?
.
How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?
Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
.
Horseshit, you lying bastard! I presented 18 U.S. Code § 953 as the statute that would cover your hypothetical scenario showing that the Trump actor would be violating the statute, but you made excuses that it didn't apply because of the following "reasons", which were nothing but obfuscations, dodges and dissembling's used to hold together your allusions of some sort of superior intellect within your mind...what a piece of lying shit you are, Tex :Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.
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.
You don't remember what started it? Here is a reminder... our intel agencies published a report showing that Russians interfered in our elections (see below). obama imposed sanctions. Flynn called the Russians and talked about those sanctions then lied about it, the VP and other Trump officials then lied to the American people about it. Then it was revealed that a handful of other Trump surrogates, including his son in law, spoke to the Russians after making statements that nobody had spoken to the Russians. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, it came out Flynn took money from the Russians for speaking and didn't disclose it... I could keep going but I think there is enough shadiness in the story to justify an investigationdude, just post up the original evidence that started all of this fake shit.Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?It's a joke and a hoax.
We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
