Page 48 of 56 FirstFirst ... 38444546474849505152 ... LastLast
Results 706 to 720 of 831

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

  1. #706 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 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.

    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.

    And your private plane analogy is amiss: planes have an obvious value as transportation. A foreigner donating office space would be an obvious violation. Information about Hillary’s dealings with the Russians, not so much. In fact, had Junior gone straight to the FBI with it—they would have thanked him and not charged him with anything.

    The Trump Tower meeting is a Nothing Burger.
    You poor, poor bastards.

    No one should ever have to torture logic and reason the way you guys have to do...to defend your political god.

    But I gotta acknowledge that it is fun to watch.




  2. #707 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.

    What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!! Plausible innocence equals reasonable doubt. You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.

    Game, set and match.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

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

    Earl (01-11-2019)

  4. #708 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.
    They broke the law. Of course I want them indicted for it. Nobody should be above the law. That has nothing to do with impeachment, though.... at this point, we have no evidence that Donald Trump was complicit in the Trump Tower meeting. It's about the criminal conduct of Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner.

    What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!!
    And when, as in the case of Don Jr.'s breaking of campaign finance laws, the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what do juries do? They rule *guilty*.

    You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.
    Have you considered taking an adult education class, just to bring your reading skills up to, say, a sixth-grade level? It's frustrating to try to debate with you, because you simply lack the skills to understand written English text.

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

    Earl (01-12-2019)

  6. #709 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    They broke the law. Of course I want them indicted for it. Nobody should be above the law. That has nothing to do with impeachment, though.... at this point, we have no evidence that Donald Trump was complicit in the Trump Tower meeting. It's about the criminal conduct of Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner.



    And when, as in the case of Don Jr.'s breaking of campaign finance laws, the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what do juries do? They rule *guilty*.



    Have you considered taking an adult education class, just to bring your reading skills up to, say, a sixth-grade level? It's frustrating to try to debate with you, because you simply lack the skills to understand written English text.
    Right lol.

    It’s entirely plausible that Junior was going to go to the authorities with whatever the Russian lawyer had. In fact, had it involved national security it would be a slam dunk. That’s all any defense attorney would have to establish. And as long as it’s plausibe—there’s your reasonable doubt.

    But since there’s no evidence that anything was obtained—the whole fricking thing is academic, anyway.

    And here’s another factor: Junior Trump isn’t General Flynn. Mullet won’t be able to bankrupt Junior to force a guilty plea. I’ll be very suprised if Mullet barks up that tree—contrary to whatever the lawyers on CNN are saying.

    You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance law. Information with respect to cyber crime is a different animal. China, for example, steals information from us all the time. But the term for that is ‘intellectual property’. Stealing that kind of information constitutes theft.

    Simply hearing what the Russian had to say is not a crime. It just isn’t. No matter how you spin it.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

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

    dukkha (01-11-2019)

  8. #710 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As we established, my definition (the dictionary definition) fits what happened at the Trump Tower.
    we have established no such thing.....in fact I recall every one with a rational mind laughed at you for thinking it had......

    do you have another definition besides the one in #200?......

  9. #711 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    so in summary, no solicitation, no conspiracy, no collusion, no campaign violations, nothing illegal......

  10. #712 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,979
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.

    What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!! Plausible innocence equals reasonable doubt. You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.

    Game, set and match.
    Hey, dumbfuck. It’s not “innocent”. It’s either guilty or not guilty.

    If and when Mueller indicts Junior, it’s because the evidence is there. Just like all the rest.

    Tick Tock

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-12-2019)

  12. #713 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,979
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,175 Times in 10,393 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    Right lol.

    It’s entirely plausible that Junior was going to go to the authorities with whatever the Russian lawyer had. In fact, had it involved national security it would be a slam dunk. That’s all any defense attorney would have to establish. And as long as it’s plausibe—there’s your reasonable doubt.

    But since there’s no evidence that anything was obtained—the whole fricking thing is academic, anyway.

    And here’s another factor: Junior Trump isn’t General Flynn. Mullet won’t be able to bankrupt Junior to force a guilty plea. I’ll be very suprised if Mullet barks up that tree—contrary to whatever the lawyers on CNN are saying.

    You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance law. Information with respect to cyber crime is a different animal. China, for example, steals information from us all the time. But the term for that is ‘intellectual property’. Stealing that kind of information constitutes theft.

    Simply hearing what the Russian had to say is not a crime. It just isn’t. No matter how you spin it.


    You Trumptards have difficulty with English. In this case, the word “solicit” totally escapes you.

  13. #714 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    "Yesterday was a big day in Washington. As newly-elected members of Congress were sworn in, control of the House of Representatives flipped from Republican to Democrat.

    While this is usually a run-of-the-mill process, a lot of things happened yesterday that should concern anyone who cherishes American values and who was hoping for compromise from the new Congress.
    · Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refused to take her oath of office on the Bible. Instead she used a law book. I don't know which law book, but I do know this: Long after the senator and whatever book she took her oath on are gone, the word of God will endure.
    · Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took her oath on what she called "Jefferson's Koran." She said, "Some of our Founding Fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now." Obviously she doesn't know very much. Jefferson got a translation of the Koran so he could understand the Islamic Barbary Pirates against whom he would later, as president, wage war. Thus the phrase, "To the shores of Tripoli" in the Marines' Hymn But she is probably right -- the Founders understood what many elites today do not: Radical Islam is a deadly threat to freedom.
    · Unfortunately, Tlaib wasn't done. She later went to a reception sponsored by the radical group MoveOn.org. Referring to a conversation she had with her young son about her election, Rep. Tlaib declared, "We're gonna go in there and impeach the motherf---er.'"
    · And there's more. The world map on the wall in Rep. Tlaib's office had a Post-It note on it labeled "Palestine" over the state of Israel.
    · Rep. Tlaib is not the only newly elected member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) lied to her constituents about her support for efforts to boycott and sanction Israel. The election of these two Muslim women, along with socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY), has been hailed by cultural and media elites as "the wave of the future." Just to be clear, they are celebrating the victory of anti-Semites. Some future.
    · Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) posted the transgender flag outside of her office. (Yes, they have a flag.)
    · Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
    · Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
    · Not to be out done, Nancy Pelosi made history herself by becoming the first woman to become Speaker of the House twice. And the first bill she pushed through the House late last night was an appropriation bill that gave an additional $12 billion in foreign aid to multiple countries and provided more money to promote abortions overseas, but did not provide one dime for better border security to protect American citizens.
    And that, my friends, was just Day One of the new Democrat House!"

  14. #715 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earl View Post
    "Yesterday was a big day in Washington. As newly-elected members of Congress were sworn in, control of the House of Representatives flipped from Republican to Democrat.

    While this is usually a run-of-the-mill process, a lot of things happened yesterday that should concern anyone who cherishes American values and who was hoping for compromise from the new Congress.
    · Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refused to take her oath of office on the Bible. Instead she used a law book. I don't know which law book, but I do know this: Long after the senator and whatever book she took her oath on are gone, the word of God will endure.
    · Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took her oath on what she called "Jefferson's Koran." She said, "Some of our Founding Fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now." Obviously she doesn't know very much. Jefferson got a translation of the Koran so he could understand the Islamic Barbary Pirates against whom he would later, as president, wage war. Thus the phrase, "To the shores of Tripoli" in the Marines' Hymn But she is probably right -- the Founders understood what many elites today do not: Radical Islam is a deadly threat to freedom.
    · Unfortunately, Tlaib wasn't done. She later went to a reception sponsored by the radical group MoveOn.org. Referring to a conversation she had with her young son about her election, Rep. Tlaib declared, "We're gonna go in there and impeach the motherf---er.'"
    · And there's more. The world map on the wall in Rep. Tlaib's office had a Post-It note on it labeled "Palestine" over the state of Israel.
    · Rep. Tlaib is not the only newly elected member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) lied to her constituents about her support for efforts to boycott and sanction Israel. The election of these two Muslim women, along with socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY), has been hailed by cultural and media elites as "the wave of the future." Just to be clear, they are celebrating the victory of anti-Semites. Some future.
    · Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) posted the transgender flag outside of her office. (Yes, they have a flag.)
    · Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
    · Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
    · Not to be out done, Nancy Pelosi made history herself by becoming the first woman to become Speaker of the House twice. And the first bill she pushed through the House late last night was an appropriation bill that gave an additional $12 billion in foreign aid to multiple countries and provided more money to promote abortions overseas, but did not provide one dime for better border security to protect American citizens.
    And that, my friends, was just Day One of the new Democrat House!"
    Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

    Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.

  15. #716 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

    Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
    It was an E-Mail and I don't expose people who E-Mail me.

    See the quotation marks, old timer?

  16. #717 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

    Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
    I could have called you a pendejo or a cabrn...I could have but I didn't.

    Self-discipline, moderation. You should have learned these after 82 YEARS!

  17. #718 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    That should have been "cabron."

  18. #719 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

    Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
    Anyone who thinks those quotation marks mean anything is an ASSHOLE. I thought you were only an asshole.

    Here's where that garbage came from:

    https://www.cwfpac.com/eod/friday-ja...e-trump-speaks

  19. #720 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    23,253
    Thanks
    13,544
    Thanked 12,185 Times in 7,629 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,051 Times in 998 Posts

    Default

    Fuck man, I clicked the wrong button.

    I meant to quote your reply, Earl.

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, 03:39 PM
  3. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-23-2018, 10:31 AM
  4. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-22-2018, 03:40 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, 10:35 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
  •