Page 46 of 56 FirstFirst ... 36424344454647484950 ... LastLast
Results 676 to 690 of 831

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

  1. #676 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Mine was from the dictionary:

    "a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

    or

    "illegal cooperation or conspiracy"

    The Trump tower meeting clearly fits that definition. It was a secret meeting, as a result of people conspiring by email for the express purpose of cheating in the election (receiving valuable information from the Russian government as part of their effort to get Trump elected, in direct contradiction of the law banning the solicitation of anything of value from foreigners for a campaign). That's collusion. There are other examples, too, like Manafort colluding with Russian intelligence operative Kilimnik, including secretly sharing polling with him to get illegal help in the election:

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/polit...ler/index.html

    So, since my definition clearly fits the fact patterns, you must be using some other definition of "collusion" when you claim there was none. What definition is that? Be specific, please.
    I have to laugh at this; there was nothing criminal about meeting with Russians, or anyone for that matter, at the Trump tower. They could have met Putin himself and it would not be a crime.

    Only morons indoctrinated by the Democratic Party of the Jackass can have such delusional arguments.

    Only a moron can buy into the notion that Hillary only lost because the Russians helped Trump. That is basically what the Mueller investigation is about and why it will become a massive NOTHING burger.

    You see snowflake, you cannot indict a President simply because you don't like the outcome of an election. You cannot indict a President without a crime. That is what happens in third world shit holes. That is the realm lunacy only the dumbest among us can buy into. You take the cake on stupid and misplaced arrogance and pomposity.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  2. #677 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,843
    Thanks
    13,242
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    The Trump tower meeting clearly fits that definition.
    no it doesn't.....it wasn't illegal......look at it this way.....everyone agrees about what Don Jr did back in 2006..........no charges have been brought against him in the two years since.........do you still think anyone believes he did something illegal?.........

  3. #678 | 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 Truth Detector View Post
    I have to laugh at this; there was nothing criminal about meeting with Russians, or anyone for that matter, at the Trump tower. They could have met Putin himself and it would not be a crime.
    Nobody has argued that meeting with Russians is a crime. The crime was meeting to solicit the provision of something of value to a campaign from a foreign national. That was the express purpose of the meeting and it was a campaign finance violation.

    Also, the definition I provided doesn't require that it be a crime. So, even if you create a special invisible-ink exception to the campaign finance law that lets you get valuable information from Russians so long as you're working for Donald Trump (or whatever special exception you're imagining), such that it isn't a crime, it would still constitute cheating in the common understanding of the term (cheating isn't generally a crime), since it's seeking the assistance of a foreign government to win a US election. That would meet the dictionary definition of collusion, which says it can be secret OR illegal.

    Only morons indoctrinated by the Democratic Party of the Jackass can have such delusional arguments.
    As you now understand, you misread the argument. Care to try again, now that your mistake was pointed out?

    Only a moron can buy into the notion that Hillary only lost because the Russians helped Trump.
    Feel free to start another thread on that topic. Clearly, that's not the topic of this thread. Whether the collusion brought about Trump's win, or wasn't necessary for his win, it's still collusion. And whether Trump could have won without his campaign's finance violations doesn't alter the criminality of the behavior.

    You see snowflake, a president isn't above indictment merely because Fox News ordered you to hate his opponent.

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

    CharacterAssassin (01-10-2019), rjhenn (01-13-2019)

  5. #679 | 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 PostmodernProphet View Post
    no it doesn't.....it wasn't illegal
    It was illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for a political campaign, which is what the meeting was expressly for. But, even if you weren't wrong about that, your point would still not be responsive. Reread the definition I provided. Is illegality a necessary element of it?

    everyone agrees about what Don Jr did back in 2006
    What did he do back in 2006?

  6. #680 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,843
    Thanks
    13,242
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It was illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for a political campaign, which is what the meeting was expressly for. But, even if you weren't wrong about that, your point would still not be responsive.
    which did not happen...

    Reread the definition I provided. Is illegality a necessary element of it?
    yes.....

    What did he do back in 2006?
    16

  7. #681 | 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 PostmodernProphet View Post
    which did not happen...
    It did. Were you unaware that the top people in the Trump campaign agreed to meet with agents of the Russian government expressly for the purpose of obtaining valuable information as part of the Russian government's efforts to get Donald Trump elected? If so, then you're aware that it did, in fact, happen.

    yes.....
    You are functionally illiterate if you think so. My ten-year-old niece could have answered that question correctly and you can't.

  8. #682 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,843
    Thanks
    13,242
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It did. Were you unaware that the top people in the Trump campaign agreed to meet with agents of the Russian government expressly for the purpose of obtaining valuable information as part of the Russian government's efforts to get Donald Trump elected? If so, then you're aware that it did, in fact, happen.



    You are functionally illiterate if you think so. My ten-year-old niece could have answered that question correctly and you can't.
    sorry you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are.....

  9. #683 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,843
    Thanks
    13,242
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    It did. Were you unaware that the top people in the Trump campaign agreed to meet with agents of the Russian government expressly for the purpose of obtaining valuable information as part of the Russian government's efforts to get Donald Trump elected? If so, then you're aware that it did, in fact, happen.



    You are functionally illiterate if you think so. My ten-year-old niece could have answered that question correctly and you can't.
    sorry you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are.....

  10. #684 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,563 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    sorry you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are.....
    As always, the ignorance is yours. Manafort was providing Ukraine with polling data to be given to Russia. It allowed Russian hackers to pinpoint those who were most vulnerable to their propaganda. The Trump campaign was doing information sharing with foreign countries which is against the law. Do you ever get anything right? I am still waiting for the first.

  11. #685 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,843
    Thanks
    13,242
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    As always, the ignorance is yours. Manafort was providing Ukraine with polling data to be given to Russia. It allowed Russian hackers to pinpoint those who were most vulnerable to their propaganda. The Trump campaign was doing information sharing with foreign countries which is against the law. Do you ever get anything right? I am still waiting for the first.
    that was the first claim of the NYT, now they say no......now they say he wanted to but it didn't happen......the Trump campaign shared nothing.......are you still dumber than shit?.......

  12. #686 | 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 was illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for a political campaign, which is what the meeting was expressly for. But, even if you weren't wrong about that, your point would still not be responsive. Reread the definition I provided. Is illegality a necessary element of it?

    What did he do back in 2006?
    You’ve been misled on the Trump Tower meeting.

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association—even with Russians before an election. Anyone who wants to try and *stretch* campaign law references to ‘things of value’ to information received in a meeting—will run smack into the First Amendment.

    Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.

    In fact, it’s entirely plausible that Junior was lured into the meeting for that precise reason: the Russian lawyer is associated with Fusion GPS; Fusion needed to put some meat the collusion fairy tale; so why not try and entice Junior into offering a quid pro quo to the Russians? Makes perfect sense. It’s just one reason another SP is desperately called for.

    At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  13. #687 | 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 PostmodernProphet View Post
    sorry you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are.....
    You dodged the question again.

  14. #688 | 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
    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association—even with Russians before an election.
    Nobody has claimed otherwise. But campaign law clearly makes it a crime to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for purposes of a campaign, and the purpose of that meeting was expressly to solicit valuable information from the Russian government for purposes of the campaign. At this point, the Trump-apologist's only real defense is to claim that there is a secret part of the law that says "thing of value" cannot include valuable information.

    Now, that's not to say the Trump legal team can't put forward the novel idea that the law is unenforceable against them because of the first amendment. And with the Supreme Court in the control of far-right-wing judges, they might even win. But step one is to indict them for it and force them to offer that as an affirmative defense, so it can be ruled on.

    Of course, if the Supreme Court comes up with an unprecedented activist ruling to redefine the first amendment to allow this, it's basically game over for keeping foreign influence out of our elections. Once you have an exception that says foreign governments can assist American political campaigns as much as they like so long as they only provide "information," that exception wholly consumes the rule, since practically everything that's needed to run a campaign is information. At that point, the foreign governments could effectively just act as information service outsourcers for the campaigns of their choosing. They could do all the work of polling, building voter databases, designing campaign ads, writing speeches, hosting cloud services, doing campaign strategy, conducting debate prep, researching position papers, and so on. As long as it's "just information," it would all be legal. And since the lion's share of a campaign's expenses are outsourceable as information services, you may as well not have a rule against foreign involvement in the first place.

    Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.
    If that's how it worked, then foreign governments could donate anything they want to a campaign. "Hey, here's a private plane to fly you around the country." As long as the campaign didn't offer anything of value in exchange for it, then it would be said to have no value and would be allowed. For very obvious reasons, that's not how it works.

    At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
    Again, you're entirely wrong. The threat to the Republic, here is the law-compressing favored by the Trump apologists. They are willing to fold, spindle, and mutilate any law to the extent necessary to say that anything Trump did must be legal. If that means inventing a new rule that says information has no value for statutory purposes, that's just what they'll do, because their loyalty is to Trump, not our nation.

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

    CharacterAssassin (01-10-2019)

  16. #689 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    6,649
    Thanks
    2,024
    Thanked 2,146 Times in 1,528 Posts
    Groans
    19
    Groaned 429 Times in 408 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Beto Omar View Post
    You’ve been misled on the Trump Tower meeting.

    The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association—even with Russians before an election. Anyone who wants to try and *stretch* campaign law references to ‘things of value’ to information received in a meeting—will run smack into the First Amendment.
    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.

    Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.

    In fact, it’s entirely plausible that Junior was lured into the meeting for that precise reason: the Russian lawyer is associated with Fusion GPS; Fusion needed to put some meat the collusion fairy tale; so why not try and entice Junior into offering a quid pro quo to the Russians? Makes perfect sense. It’s just one reason another SP is desperately called for.

    At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
    Nah. There's no law-stretching going on, nor can you demonstrate otherwise.

  17. #690 | 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
    Nobody has claimed otherwise. But campaign law clearly makes it a crime to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for purposes of a campaign, and the purpose of that meeting was expressly to solicit valuable information from the Russian government for purposes of the campaign. At this point, the Trump-apologist's only real defense is to claim that there is a secret part of the law that says "thing of value" cannot include valuable information.

    Now, that's not to say the Trump legal team can't put forward the novel idea that the law is unenforceable against them because of the first amendment. And with the Supreme Court in the control of far-right-wing judges, they might even win. But step one is to indict them for it and force them to offer that as an affirmative defense, so it can be ruled on.

    Of course, if the Supreme Court comes up with an unprecedented activist ruling to redefine the first amendment to allow this, it's basically game over for keeping foreign influence out of our elections. Once you have an exception that says foreign governments can assist American political campaigns as much as they like so long as they only provide "information," that exception wholly consumes the rule, since practically everything that's needed to run a campaign is information. At that point, the foreign governments could effectively just act as information service outsourcers for the campaigns of their choosing. They could do all the work of polling, building voter databases, designing campaign ads, writing speeches, hosting cloud services, doing campaign strategy, conducting debate prep, researching position papers, and so on. As long as it's "just information," it would all be legal. And since the lion's share of a campaign's expenses are outsourceable as information services, you may as well not have a rule against foreign involvement in the first place.



    If that's how it worked, then foreign governments could donate anything they want to a campaign. "Hey, here's a private plane to fly you around the country." As long as the campaign didn't offer anything of value in exchange for it, then it would be said to have no value and would be allowed. For very obvious reasons, that's not how it works.



    Again, you're entirely wrong. The threat to the Republic, here is the law-compressing favored by the Trump apologists. They are willing to fold, spindle, and mutilate any law to the extent necessary to say that anything Trump did must be legal. If that means inventing a new rule that says information has no value for statutory purposes, that's just what they'll do, because their loyalty is to Trump, not our nation.
    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.
    Last edited by Darth Omar; 01-10-2019 at 06:31 PM.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

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
  •