WH OFFICIAL SCATHING OP ED NYT re Trump incompetence and AMORALITY!

[WTP]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

 

[Oldstyle]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So what was the crime that Trump conspired to commit? The meeting was set up to discuss "dirt" that the Russian lawyer supposedly had on Clinton. When she showed up and revealed that she had no such dirt on Clinton and really wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia the meeting came to an abrupt end. How does the "law" say that is a conspiracy to commit a crime? If someone sets up a meeting with you to discuss something that is completely legal...you go to the meeting and they start discussing something totally different and you end the meeting...how have you "conspired" on anything? To even claim that borders on farce! Once again...you'd be laughed out of a court of law!

 

[WTP]

The Russian lawyer was an adversary. We have sanctions against the Russians. Meaning, it is illegal to conspire with "any" Russian to get dirt on a political opponent in an America presidential campaign against that American opponent. Any more questions?

I just pasted the statute you seem to think that Trump violated, WTP and then explained why it didn't apply.

The Russian lawyer was an adversary of the United States? Really? In what way? Because you need her to be one because if she isn't then it's obvious that your "crime" becomes a joke? So according to you...because we have sanctions against Russia...simply talking to a private Russian citizen who says they have dirt on Hillary Clinton...violates the statute you cited? How does "dirt" on Hillary Clinton influence the measures or conduct of Russia in relation to a dispute or controversy with the United States or defeat measures of the United States?

The Russian lawyer is automatically an adversary, because she is a Russian citizen, who by the way,worked for the Russian government. 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

She had done some legal work for the Russian government but she was not part of the Russian government. She was not working as an "agent" or an "officer" of the Russian government for that meeting however...she was a private citizen. Claiming that she's "automatically" an "adversary" because she's Russian and we have sanctions against Russia is an amusing stretch, WTP! So any American who has spoken to a Russian citizen since sanctions were imposed is in violation of your statute because EVERY Russian is considered an "adversary"? I would LOVE to see you argue THAT in front of a judge in a court of law! At best you'd get laughed at. At worse you'd be told what an idiot you were!

Lol! No matter how hard you try, you always box yourself in. It isn't "any American." It was "they Americans", and "they" were part of the Trump campaign to get dirt on a political opponent with Russians. "Any Russians"! That is a conspiracy, via the law. Period!

Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting, worked with government officials, report says

In order to commit a criminal conspiracy you first have to conspire to commit a crime! Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime. So where is your "conspiracy, via the law"?

It is amazing to me the level at which one will go to continue making them self into a total fool. "Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime". You forgot to mention the key parts. It wasn't just "someone". That "someone" was a Russian agent and or Government official negotiating a change in policy from having the Magnitsky Act, to not having it, with a presidential campaign, speaking on behalf of a presidential candidate with a foreign adversary.That is a text book conspiracy. It is this conspiracy; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments Anything else?

 

[Oldstyle]

I just pasted the statute you seem to think that Trump violated, WTP and then explained why it didn't apply.

The Russian lawyer was an adversary of the United States? Really? In what way? Because you need her to be one because if she isn't then it's obvious that your "crime" becomes a joke? So according to you...because we have sanctions against Russia...simply talking to a private Russian citizen who says they have dirt on Hillary Clinton...violates the statute you cited? How does "dirt" on Hillary Clinton influence the measures or conduct of Russia in relation to a dispute or controversy with the United States or defeat measures of the United States?

The Russian lawyer is automatically an adversary, because she is a Russian citizen, who by the way,worked for the Russian government. 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

She had done some legal work for the Russian government but she was not part of the Russian government. She was not working as an "agent" or an "officer" of the Russian government for that meeting however...she was a private citizen. Claiming that she's "automatically" an "adversary" because she's Russian and we have sanctions against Russia is an amusing stretch, WTP! So any American who has spoken to a Russian citizen since sanctions were imposed is in violation of your statute because EVERY Russian is considered an "adversary"? I would LOVE to see you argue THAT in front of a judge in a court of law! At best you'd get laughed at. At worse you'd be told what an idiot you were!

Lol! No matter how hard you try, you always box yourself in. It isn't "any American." It was "they Americans", and "they" were part of the Trump campaign to get dirt on a political opponent with Russians. "Any Russians"! That is a conspiracy, via the law. Period!

Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting, worked with government officials, report says

In order to commit a criminal conspiracy you first have to conspire to commit a crime! Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime. So where is your "conspiracy, via the law"?

It is amazing to me the level at which one will go to continue making them self into a total fool. "Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime". You forgot to mention the key parts. It wasn't just "someone". That "someone" was a Russian agent and or Government official negotiating a change in policy from having the Magnitsky Act, to not having it, with a presidential campaign, speaking on behalf of a presidential candidate with a foreign adversary.That is a text book conspiracy. It is this conspiracy; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments Anything else?

Only she wasn't an agent or an official of the Russian government nor did anyone with the Trump campaign know that she was really there to discuss negotiating a change in policy over the Magnitsky Act! She sprung that on them AT the meeting...a meeting that was quickly ended once Trump's people realized that she wasn't there with what she said she was going to have! So where is the "conspiracy" to commit a crime on the side of Trump's campaign?

 

[WTP]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So what was the crime that Trump conspired to commit? The meeting was set up to discuss "dirt" that the Russian lawyer supposedly had on Clinton. When she showed up and revealed that she had no such dirt on Clinton and really wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia the meeting came to an abrupt end. How does the "law" say that is a conspiracy to commit a crime? If someone sets up a meeting with you to discuss something that is completely legal...you go to the meeting and they start discussing something totally different and you end the meeting...how have you "conspired" on anything? To even claim that borders on farce! Once again...you'd be laughed out of a court of law!

It was a meeting to dissolve the Magnitsky Act and to drop sanctions. And the meeting was being held with a Russian official and or agent with a presidential campaign who's members had no authority to hold such a meeting to discuss government policy behind the back of a sitting president. That is totally illegal, and a conspiracy. Whether she had dirt on Clinton or not is totally, 100% irrelevant. It goes back to motive and intent. Read the damn law. Stop acting like a fool; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

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. What here, do you not understand?

Where was the "authority" for the meeting? Answer, there was none.

"With intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government" The meeting itself proves that, by attending the meeting in a possible exchange.

 

[Oldstyle]

As for conspiracies? Did you want to take a crack at explaining who that lawyer ALSO visited while she was there in New York? That would be Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. Now what do you think THAT conversation was about? Are you ready to bring a charge of criminal conspiracy against Mr. Simpson as well?

 

[WTP]

The Russian lawyer is automatically an adversary, because she is a Russian citizen, who by the way,worked for the Russian government. 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

She had done some legal work for the Russian government but she was not part of the Russian government. She was not working as an "agent" or an "officer" of the Russian government for that meeting however...she was a private citizen. Claiming that she's "automatically" an "adversary" because she's Russian and we have sanctions against Russia is an amusing stretch, WTP! So any American who has spoken to a Russian citizen since sanctions were imposed is in violation of your statute because EVERY Russian is considered an "adversary"? I would LOVE to see you argue THAT in front of a judge in a court of law! At best you'd get laughed at. At worse you'd be told what an idiot you were!

Lol! No matter how hard you try, you always box yourself in. It isn't "any American." It was "they Americans", and "they" were part of the Trump campaign to get dirt on a political opponent with Russians. "Any Russians"! That is a conspiracy, via the law. Period!

Natalia Veselnitskaya, Russian lawyer at Trump Tower meeting, worked with government officials, report says

In order to commit a criminal conspiracy you first have to conspire to commit a crime! Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime. So where is your "conspiracy, via the law"?

It is amazing to me the level at which one will go to continue making them self into a total fool. "Having a meeting with someone who promised you dirt on your political opponent isn't a crime". You forgot to mention the key parts. It wasn't just "someone". That "someone" was a Russian agent and or Government official negotiating a change in policy from having the Magnitsky Act, to not having it, with a presidential campaign, speaking on behalf of a presidential candidate with a foreign adversary.That is a text book conspiracy. It is this conspiracy; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments Anything else?

Only she wasn't an agent or an official of the Russian government nor did anyone with the Trump campaign know that she was really there to discuss negotiating a change in policy over the Magnitsky Act! She sprung that on them AT the meeting...a meeting that was quickly ended once Trump's people realized that she wasn't there with what she said she was going to have! So where is the "conspiracy" to commit a crime on the side of Trump's campaign?

You can't possibly be this stupid. No man or woman has zero role in government while being given the authority to speak for the government of Russia about the Magnitsky Act. You really have to be grotesquely stupid to believe a woman or a man held no role.

 

[Oldstyle]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So what was the crime that Trump conspired to commit? The meeting was set up to discuss "dirt" that the Russian lawyer supposedly had on Clinton. When she showed up and revealed that she had no such dirt on Clinton and really wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia the meeting came to an abrupt end. How does the "law" say that is a conspiracy to commit a crime? If someone sets up a meeting with you to discuss something that is completely legal...you go to the meeting and they start discussing something totally different and you end the meeting...how have you "conspired" on anything? To even claim that borders on farce! Once again...you'd be laughed out of a court of law!

It was a meeting to dissolve the Magnitsky Act and to drop sanctions. And the meeting was being held with a Russian official and or agent with a presidential campaign who's members had no authority to hold such a meeting to discuss government policy behind the back of a sitting president. That is totally illegal, and a conspiracy. Whether she had dirt on Clinton or not is totally, 100% irrelevant. It goes back to motive and intent. Read the damn law. Stop acting like a fool; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

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. What here, do you not understand?

Where was the "authority" for the meeting? Answer, there was none.

"With intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government" The meeting itself proves that, by attending the meeting in a possible exchange.

So let me see if I follow your "logic" here! If I attend a meeting that I've been told will be about dirt someone has on my political opponent but when I show up what is brought up is totally different and I end the meeting and walk out...I'm guilty of criminal conspiracy because I didn't somehow know that the meeting wouldn't be about what it was supposed to be? That's so absurd I can't believe you're even trying to push it as a narrative!

 

[WTP]

As for conspiracies? Did you want to take a crack at explaining who that lawyer ALSO visited while she was there in New York? That would be Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. Now what do you think THAT conversation was about? Are you ready to bring a charge of criminal conspiracy against Mr. Simpson as well?

You are distracting once again, because you ran out of gas on the main argument. You are so obvious.
"As for conspiracies". Lol! You're such a loser. You hop around from one thing to the next after you've exhausted yourself with the original topic. Once you lose one argument, it's on to the next, as if the first one never existed. You folks are pitiful.

 

[Oldstyle]

So let's look at this whole scenario...

The Russian lawyer meets with Glenn Simpson the night before the Trump Tower meeting and the night after the Trump Tower meeting. Gee, wonder what they discussed? How they were going to try and set up Trump? How it went?

What's the definition of "conspiracy" again? Every time you peel back a layer of this onion...you find Fusion GPS...the group Hillary Clinton was paying money to...working yet another scam to smear Trump. But you don't see that...do you, WTP?

 

[Oldstyle]

You're the one who brought up the Trump Tower meeting as an example of a crime that Trump committed. I've simply responded to why that's such a joke! The only conspiracy that I see being committed there was between the Russian lawyer and Glenn Simpson. Or do you think that they were discussing their "grand kids" like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? (eye roll)

 

[WTP]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So what was the crime that Trump conspired to commit? The meeting was set up to discuss "dirt" that the Russian lawyer supposedly had on Clinton. When she showed up and revealed that she had no such dirt on Clinton and really wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia the meeting came to an abrupt end. How does the "law" say that is a conspiracy to commit a crime? If someone sets up a meeting with you to discuss something that is completely legal...you go to the meeting and they start discussing something totally different and you end the meeting...how have you "conspired" on anything? To even claim that borders on farce! Once again...you'd be laughed out of a court of law!

It was a meeting to dissolve the Magnitsky Act and to drop sanctions. And the meeting was being held with a Russian official and or agent with a presidential campaign who's members had no authority to hold such a meeting to discuss government policy behind the back of a sitting president. That is totally illegal, and a conspiracy. Whether she had dirt on Clinton or not is totally, 100% irrelevant. It goes back to motive and intent. Read the damn law. Stop acting like a fool; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

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. What here, do you not understand?

Where was the "authority" for the meeting? Answer, there was none.

"With intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government" The meeting itself proves that, by attending the meeting in a possible exchange.

So let me see if I follow your "logic" here! If I attend a meeting that I've been told will be about dirt someone has on my political opponent but when I show up what is brought up is totally different and I end the meeting and walk out...I'm guilty of criminal conspiracy because I didn't somehow know that the meeting wouldn't be about what it was supposed to be? That's so absurd I can't believe you're even trying to push it as a narrative!

Wow, you're as bad as Trump. But you aren't near as smart to get away with it. Whatever is or isn't brought up is also totally 100% irrelevant. And you already forgot why. The meeting was not legally authorized for one. It was behind the back of a sitting president. And it still speaks to intent and motive. The intent and motive speak to why the meeting took place. Also, you don't have anything to defend for an unauthorized meeting, where the intention was to go over foreign policy with an adversary? Can you show me any statute where that is legal?

 

[WTP]

You're the one who brought up the Trump Tower meeting as an example of a crime that Trump committed. I've simply responded to why that's such a joke! The only conspiracy that I see being committed there was between the Russian lawyer and Glenn Simpson. Or do you think that they were discussing their "grand kids" like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? (eye roll)

You continue to make yourself into a laughing stock. What statute authorizes a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russians to intentionally discuss foreign policy behind the back of a sitting president?

 

[WTP]

Basically what you've admitted is that you have no crimes yet...but you're really hopeful that Mueller can find some after two plus years of looking?

Conspiracy is a crime. The law says so.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. So what was the crime that Trump conspired to commit? The meeting was set up to discuss "dirt" that the Russian lawyer supposedly had on Clinton. When she showed up and revealed that she had no such dirt on Clinton and really wanted to talk about sanctions on Russia the meeting came to an abrupt end. How does the "law" say that is a conspiracy to commit a crime? If someone sets up a meeting with you to discuss something that is completely legal...you go to the meeting and they start discussing something totally different and you end the meeting...how have you "conspired" on anything? To even claim that borders on farce! Once again...you'd be laughed out of a court of law!

It was a meeting to dissolve the Magnitsky Act and to drop sanctions. And the meeting was being held with a Russian official and or agent with a presidential campaign who's members had no authority to hold such a meeting to discuss government policy behind the back of a sitting president. That is totally illegal, and a conspiracy. Whether she had dirt on Clinton or not is totally, 100% irrelevant. It goes back to motive and intent. Read the damn law. Stop acting like a fool; 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

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. What here, do you not understand?

Where was the "authority" for the meeting? Answer, there was none.

"With intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government" The meeting itself proves that, by attending the meeting in a possible exchange.

So let me see if I follow your "logic" here! If I attend a meeting that I've been told will be about dirt someone has on my political opponent but when I show up what is brought up is totally different and I end the meeting and walk out...I'm guilty of criminal conspiracy because I didn't somehow know that the meeting wouldn't be about what it was supposed to be? That's so absurd I can't believe you're even trying to push it as a narrative!

Wow, you're as bad as Trump. But you aren't near as smart to get away with it. Whatever is or isn't brought up is also totally 100% irrelevant. And you already forgot why. The meeting was not legally authorized for one. It was behind the back of a sitting president. And it still speaks to intent and motive. The intent and motive speak to why the meeting took place. Also, you don't have anything to defend for an unauthorized meeting, where the intention was to go over foreign policy with an adversary? Can you show me any statute where that is legal?

Still waiting? I don't have all day for apologists who have no counter arguments. Move!

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you want to take a crack at explaining how Natalia Veselnitskaya got into the US to attend that meeting at Trump Tower after being refused entry in June of that year? Oh, my gosh...a special parole visa issued by the State Department allowed her in? Why the change of heart by the State Department?

 

[WTP]

So let's look at this whole scenario...

The Russian lawyer meets with Glenn Simpson the night before the Trump Tower meeting and the night after the Trump Tower meeting. Gee, wonder what they discussed? How they were going to try and set up Trump? How it went?

What's the definition of "conspiracy" again? Every time you peel back a layer of this onion...you find Fusion GPS...the group Hillary Clinton was paying money to...working yet another scam to smear Trump. But you don't see that...do you, WTP?

You are definitely an off topic coward. I'll concede to that.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're the one who brought up the Trump Tower meeting as an example of a crime that Trump committed. I've simply responded to why that's such a joke! The only conspiracy that I see being committed there was between the Russian lawyer and Glenn Simpson. Or do you think that they were discussing their "grand kids" like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? (eye roll)

You continue to make yourself into a laughing stock. What statute authorizes a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russians to intentionally discuss foreign policy behind the back of a sitting president?

The meeting was to discuss "dirt" that Natalia Veselnitskaya alleged to have on Hillary Clinton...not to discuss foreign policy behind Barack Obama's back! When it became clear that there was no dirt...the meeting ended. So what statute would that have violated?

 

[WTP]

Did you want to take a crack at explaining how Natalia Veselnitskaya got into the US to attend that meeting at Trump Tower after being refused entry in June of that year? Oh, my gosh...a special parole visa issued by the State Department allowed her in? Why the change of heart by the State Department?

Don't know. Good thing for the law, that has nothing to do with the meeting, or your cowardice to answer my question. Was the meeting authorized? What statute authorizes such a meeting?

 

[Oldstyle]

So let's look at this whole scenario...

The Russian lawyer meets with Glenn Simpson the night before the Trump Tower meeting and the night after the Trump Tower meeting. Gee, wonder what they discussed? How they were going to try and set up Trump? How it went?

What's the definition of "conspiracy" again? Every time you peel back a layer of this onion...you find Fusion GPS...the group Hillary Clinton was paying money to...working yet another scam to smear Trump. But you don't see that...do you, WTP?

You are definitely an off topic coward. I'll concede to that.

It was YOUR topic, WTP...I'm simply the guy shoving it down your throat at the moment!

 

[WTP]

You're the one who brought up the Trump Tower meeting as an example of a crime that Trump committed. I've simply responded to why that's such a joke! The only conspiracy that I see being committed there was between the Russian lawyer and Glenn Simpson. Or do you think that they were discussing their "grand kids" like Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch? (eye roll)

You continue to make yourself into a laughing stock. What statute authorizes a meeting with the Trump campaign and Russians to intentionally discuss foreign policy behind the back of a sitting president?

The meeting was to discuss "dirt" that Natalia Veselnitskaya alleged to have on Hillary Clinton...not to discuss foreign policy behind Barack Obama's back! When it became clear that there was no dirt...the meeting ended. So what statute would that have violated?

It was behind his back, because they had no authority to hold such a meeting to discuss dirt on Clinton or foreign policy to get rid of the Magnitsky Act.