Page 47 of 55 FirstFirst ... 37434445464748495051 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 705 of 821

Thread: It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie

  1. #691 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72,343
    Thanks
    3,251
    Thanked 15,715 Times in 13,152 Posts
    Groans
    1,695
    Groaned 1,939 Times in 1,836 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    You dodged the question again.
    I've carved the answer on your fucking forehead.......not sure what else I can do to satisfy you.......the answer is 1) there has been no collusion under the definition you claim to use......2) even if there was, collusion is not a crime for which the president can be impeached and 3) every other lib'rul has given up hope on "collusion" and has moved on the money laundering, another loser fantasy........

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  3. #692 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72,343
    Thanks
    3,251
    Thanked 15,715 Times in 13,152 Posts
    Groans
    1,695
    Groaned 1,939 Times in 1,836 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    makes it a crime to solicit anything
    even if that were true, no one from the Trump campaign solicited anything.......some Russian tried to solicit Trump's support on an adoption issue......go ahead and charge her with solicitation.........

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Darth Beto Omar (01-10-2019), Earl (01-11-2019)

  5. #693 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21,985
    Thanks
    4,779
    Thanked 10,632 Times in 7,693 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 780 Times in 744 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterAssassin View Post
    LOL! Where'd you study law? Pep Boys? The 1st Amendment had jack shit to do with that meeting if it was for illegal purposes, sport.

    Nah. There's no law-stretching going on, nor can you demonstrate otherwise.
    But I just did lol.
    Insanity is voting democrat over and over again and expecting shit to change.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Beto Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  7. #694 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,976
    Thanks
    543
    Thanked 705 Times in 490 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 52 Times in 52 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    But I just did lol.
    Nah. You didn't. Nice fail you've got there.

  8. The Following User Groans At CharacterAssassin For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  9. #695 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21,985
    Thanks
    4,779
    Thanked 10,632 Times in 7,693 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 780 Times in 744 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    even if that were true, no one from the Trump campaign solicited anything.......some Russian tried to solicit Trump's support on an adoption issue......go ahead and charge her with solicitation.........
    They even have to stretch the definition of solicitation lol.
    Insanity is voting democrat over and over again and expecting shit to change.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Beto Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  11. #696 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,114
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 6,442 Times in 4,364 Posts
    Groans
    2,551
    Groaned 1,309 Times in 1,220 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    even if that were true, no one from the Trump campaign solicited anything.......some Russian tried to solicit Trump's support on an adoption issue......go ahead and charge her with solicitation.........
    You really believe that? Wow. It was never adoption unless Putin adopted Trump. That makes sense.
    You do know that Trump's people, Manafort for one, provided Ukraine with polling data . That allows them to zero in on those most likely to buy right wing/Russian propaganda like you did. Yep, they were colluding with Russians. Call it conspiring if it allows you to sleep better. But they may be in deep orange shit.

  12. The Following User Groans At Nordberg For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  13. #697 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21,985
    Thanks
    4,779
    Thanked 10,632 Times in 7,693 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 780 Times in 744 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    You really believe that? Wow. It was never adoption unless Putin adopted Trump. That makes sense.
    You do know that Trump's people, Manafort for one, provided Ukraine with polling data . That allows them to zero in on those most likely to buy right wing/Russian propaganda like you did. Yep, they were colluding with Russians. Call it conspiring if it allows you to sleep better. But they may be in deep orange shit.
    I think it was Dershowitz who coined the phrase ‘collusion may be a sin but it’s not a crime’ lol.

    Assuming, that actually happened, Ukrainians aren’t Russians. Even if it involved Russians, it’s an instance of Manafort sharing intellectual property [in the form of polling data] with foreigners. Unless Manafort came by it dishonestly, I can’t imagine what the crime would be.

    Here’s the News Flash: countries meddling in other country’s elections has been going on as long as there have been elections. And your own country is one of the worst offenders.

    Also, from a practical standpoint what use would it be anyway? Trying to affect an electoral outcome from Ukraine or Russia would be The Mother of Fool’s Errands. Social media is a veritable sea of misinformation—*without the Russians*.

    The Russians aren’t stupid—they know this as well as anyone. You might note they didn’t exactly put a lot of money into it.

    The Trump Tower meeting is more fertile ground for potential collusion but none of the facts help your case. Had Junior paid money for *illegally acquired* information on Hillary [and I’m pretty sure Junior would have to know it was illegally acquired] they could nail him for possession of stolen [intellectual] property. Or if Junior knowingly bought classified information from Russians, that would be a crime.

    But merely showing up to hear what a Russian has to say about Hillary Clinton is not a crime. It just isn’t.
    Insanity is voting democrat over and over again and expecting shit to change.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Beto Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  15. #698 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72,343
    Thanks
    3,251
    Thanked 15,715 Times in 13,152 Posts
    Groans
    1,695
    Groaned 1,939 Times in 1,836 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    You really believe that? Wow. It was never adoption unless Putin adopted Trump. That makes sense.
    You do know that Trump's people, Manafort for one, provided Ukraine with polling data . That allows them to zero in on those most likely to buy right wing/Russian propaganda like you did. Yep, they were colluding with Russians. Call it conspiring if it allows you to sleep better. But they may be in deep orange shit.
    it being fact, it makes it easier to believe.....I read the NYT, including the retraction and no one in the Trump campaign gave anyone anything........the only orange shit around here is between a lib'rul's ears......

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  17. #699 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,336
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 1,370 Times in 832 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 67 Times in 66 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    You’re headed down a slippery slope by assigning ‘value’ to information sharing in a campaign.
    Obviously not. The idea that information has value is an age-old one that is firmly established in the law. It is, for example, the basis for claiming damages in any number of contractual arrangements. The slippery slope here is the one you're headed down when, for the sake of defending the Trump administration, you want to assert the existence of an invisible clause in campaign finance law that says that a thing of value cannot include valuable information. If we go down that slope then, as I've explained, you may as well not have such laws, since anyone can then spend any amount on any campaign, so long as the services provided are confined to information services.

    Say a Dreamer shares ‘valuable information’ about the border with a democrat during a campaign. Are you prepared to prosecute the democrat for a campaign violation? Somehow, I think not.
    That depends entirely on the context, obviously. If it's an ordinary exchange of information where the campaign is just asking questions to gather information as ordinarily happens, then it would not be a violation, since it then isn't a donation to the campaign. But picture if, instead, Mexican agents were to contact a Democratic campaign and offer to meet with the Clinton campaign in order to provide valuable information from cyber-espionage, damaging to Donald Trump, expressly as part of the Mexican government's efforts to get Clinton elected. What if the Clinton people were so lacking in patriotism that rather than report that to the FBI, they agreed to the meeting, so they could solicit that valuable donation. Would that be a campaign finance violation? Of course it would.

    And your private plane analogy is amiss: planes have an obvious value as transportation
    Yes, and information has value, too. Companies spend billions of dollars on R&D for example, where the only product is information. Often the investment dwarfs the cost of buying a whole fleet of planes. But you want to assign the value of $0 to that information.... not because it is remotely sane to do so, but because you think that's the path to excusing the Trump campaign's conduct.

    In fact, had Junior gone straight to the FBI with it—they would have thanked him and not charged him with anything.
    EXACTLY! In the same way, being offered stolen goods is not a crime, but conspiring to receive stolen goods is. If someone offers to sell you something you know they have no legal right to sell you, and you go to the cops about it, you're simply doing your civic duty. If, instead, you agree to meet with them to arrange for the transfer of the goods, you're committing a felony. What Trump Jr. (and Kushner and Manafort) did was equivalent to arranging to meet with a fence to take possession of stolen goods.

    The Trump Tower meeting is a Nothing Burger.
    As you know, you will say every single criminal act by Trump in his campaign is a "nothing burger," no matter what, because that's the exact point handed down by the conservative apparatchiks. Let me guess: Trump's conspiracy to pay off Stephanie Clifford and the other sex worker, to protect his campaign, without disclosure (in contravention of campaign finance law) was also a "nothing burger," right?

  18. The Following User Groans At Oneuli For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Oneuli For This Post:

    CharacterAssassin (01-11-2019)

  20. #700 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,336
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 1,370 Times in 832 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 67 Times in 66 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I've carved the answer on your fucking forehead
    No. As you're aware (and as everyone who has read the exchange is aware), you've dodged the question every single time and continue to do so.

    So, what definition of collusion are you using to say there wasn't collusion? Maybe this time you'll find your courage. Somehow, I doubt it.

  21. The Following User Groans At Oneuli For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Oneuli For This Post:

    CharacterAssassin (01-11-2019)

  23. #701 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,976
    Thanks
    543
    Thanked 705 Times in 490 Posts
    Groans
    15
    Groaned 52 Times in 52 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I've carved the answer on your fucking forehead.......not sure what else I can do to satisfy you.......the answer is 1) there has been no collusion under the definition you claim to use......2) even if there was, collusion is not a crime for which the president can be impeached and 3) every other lib'rul has given up hope on "collusion" and has moved on the money laundering, another loser fantasy........
    It's fun to watch you spazz-dance with her boot up your ass when she's utterly demolished you.

  24. The Following User Groans At CharacterAssassin For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  25. #702 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    72,343
    Thanks
    3,251
    Thanked 15,715 Times in 13,152 Posts
    Groans
    1,695
    Groaned 1,939 Times in 1,836 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    No. As you're aware (and as everyone who has read the exchange is aware), you've dodged the question every single time and continue to do so.

    So, what definition of collusion are you using to say there wasn't collusion? Maybe this time you'll find your courage. Somehow, I doubt it.
    yours.....post #200......same answer I've given you many times already....

  26. #703 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    21,985
    Thanks
    4,779
    Thanked 10,632 Times in 7,693 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 780 Times in 744 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Obviously not. The idea that information has value is an age-old one that is firmly established in the law. It is, for example, the basis for claiming damages in any number of contractual arrangements. The slippery slope here is the one you're headed down when, for the sake of defending the Trump administration, you want to assert the existence of an invisible clause in campaign finance law that says that a thing of value cannot include valuable information. If we go down that slope then, as I've explained, you may as well not have such laws, since anyone can then spend any amount on any campaign, so long as the services provided are confined to information services.



    That depends entirely on the context, obviously. If it's an ordinary exchange of information where the campaign is just asking questions to gather information as ordinarily happens, then it would not be a violation, since it then isn't a donation to the campaign. But picture if, instead, Mexican agents were to contact a Democratic campaign and offer to meet with the Clinton campaign in order to provide valuable information from cyber-espionage, damaging to Donald Trump, expressly as part of the Mexican government's efforts to get Clinton elected. What if the Clinton people were so lacking in patriotism that rather than report that to the FBI, they agreed to the meeting, so they could solicit that valuable donation. Would that be a campaign finance violation? Of course it would.



    Yes, and information has value, too. Companies spend billions of dollars on R&D for example, where the only product is information. Often the investment dwarfs the cost of buying a whole fleet of planes. But you want to assign the value of $0 to that information.... not because it is remotely sane to do so, but because you think that's the path to excusing the Trump campaign's conduct.



    EXACTLY! In the same way, being offered stolen goods is not a crime, but conspiring to receive stolen goods is. If someone offers to sell you something you know they have no legal right to sell you, and you go to the cops about it, you're simply doing your civic duty. If, instead, you agree to meet with them to arrange for the transfer of the goods, you're committing a felony. What Trump Jr. (and Kushner and Manafort) did was equivalent to arranging to meet with a fence to take possession of stolen goods.



    As you know, you will say every single criminal act by Trump in his campaign is a "nothing burger," no matter what, because that's the exact point handed down by the conservative apparatchiks. Let me guess: Trump's conspiracy to pay off Stephanie Clifford and the other sex worker, to protect his campaign, without disclosure (in contravention of campaign finance law) was also a "nothing burger," right?
    I knew you’d make an excuse for the Dreamer lol.

    Just like you’ll make excuses for the DNC *actually paying for Russian info and actually using it* against Trump. I’ve heard them all so I won’t bother with it.

    Junior obtained no information so you’re trying to assign value to something that doesn’t even exist. Also, even granting merit to your *specious* information argument, no one, but Junior Trump, knew what he was going to do with the information assuming he acquired any.

    And you just conceded everything would have been fine had he gone to the authorities with it. Your task would be to convince a jury you could read the future and/Junior’s mind.

    Good luck with that.
    Insanity is voting democrat over and over again and expecting shit to change.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Beto Omar For This Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  28. #704 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,336
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 1,370 Times in 832 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 67 Times in 66 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    yours
    As we established, my definition (the dictionary definition) fits what happened at the Trump Tower. So, if you don't think it was collusion, which definition are you using? Don't cower from the question. Find your courage and answer it forthrightly.

  29. #705 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,336
    Thanks
    340
    Thanked 1,370 Times in 832 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 67 Times in 66 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    I knew you’d make an excuse for the Dreamer lol.
    It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.

    Just like you’ll make excuses for the DNC *actually paying for Russian info and actually using it*
    What's funny about conservatives is how they so often build the defeat of their arguments right into those arguments. OBVIOUSLY, the problem would by if they DIDN'T pay for the valuable information. Then the information would be a campaign donation.

    Think it through. Let's say there's a law limiting individual contributions to a campaign to $2000 and you're running for office. And say I sell buttons and you pay me $5000 for $5000 worth of campaign buttons. Did I violate the campaign law? Of course not. I was compensated at fair market value for what I sold to the campaign, therefore it wasn't a donation and isn't covered by laws dealing with campaign donations. But say, instead, I handed you $5000 of campaign buttons for free, and even expressly said it was as part of my effort to get you elected. Now, have I violated campaign finance law? Of course I have. It's a donation in kind that exceeds the dollar amount.

    And, no, the analysis is no different if it's information. If you offer to pay me $5000 for a report on the social media haunts of undecided voters, so you can target your ads better, and that's a reasonable market rate for that kind of work, then my giving you that information in exchange for the money is not a campaign finance violation, because I've donated nothing. But if I give you a report that would have cost you about $5000 to develop on your own, and I've expressly told you that it's part of my effort to get you elected, and I charge you nothing, then of course it's a campaign finance violation.

    Junior obtained no information
    Under campaign finance law, he didn't need to. He merely needed to solicit it. As soon as he agreed to a meeting to get that valuable donation of information, he committed a crime.

    so you’re trying to assign value to something that doesn’t even exist
    It doesn't need to exist for soliciting it to be against the law. If I'm a campaign manager and I reach out to the Ayatollah and ask for him to organize a massive social media campaign against the opponent, to help my guy get elected, I've broken the law, by soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national for a campaign. It doesn't matter that the social media campaign doesn't exist at the time I solicit it.

    Also, even granting merit to your *specious* information argument, no one, but Junior Trump, knew what he was going to do with the information assuming he acquired any.
    He can try to offer the defense that he was just trying to conduct a private sting operation and was going to turn the information over to authorities. In the same sense, someone who is arrested soliciting illegal drugs can claim he was just trying to help out authorities and would have turned the drugs in if he'd gotten them. Or a John can claim that when he picked up a hooker he was planning to take her back to his hotel room to try to explain to her the error of her ways. A jury is welcome to consider that and decide if it's plausible. But step one is indictment, and it should be the same with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. Considering soliciting the information, itself, was a crime, with no need to prove what the person intended to do with it, you'd be hard pressed to convince a jury to nullify the law in that case.

  30. The Following User Groans At Oneuli For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Oneuli For This Post:

    domer76 (01-11-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2018, 08:38 AM
  2. Was the Trump-Russia investigation politically motivated from the start?
    By Tranquillus in Exile in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 06-19-2018, 04:39 PM
  3. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-23-2018, 11:31 AM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-22-2018, 04:40 PM
  5. Hillary's latest conspiracy theory - Russia is rigging the election for trump
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-07-2016, 11:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •