You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:And to the point, what information was received? If no transfer took place, ignoring the loose interpretation of value, absolutely nothing of value was transferred.
Attempting to commit a crime is not illegal as long as you fail? Is that your argument? The fact that the Trump campaign is basically a bunch of bumbling buffoons is NOT a good reason to let them off the hook.
What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
Is Jr an idiot for taking the meeting. I think so. Is what we know he did illegal, most experts are saying no based off what we know. Is what Jr did any different than what Clinton's campaign did with Ukraine? I don't see how. And this is why I question credibility on this shit. If you only bitch when your enemy does it, and ignore it when your friend does it, it begs the question is your criticism or outrage genuine, or just a partisan ploy. I tend to believe it's the latter.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
TheMole wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:And to the point, what information was received? If no transfer took place, ignoring the loose interpretation of value, absolutely nothing of value was transferred.
Attempting to commit a crime is not illegal as long as you fail? Is that your argument? The fact that the Trump campaign is basically a bunch of bumbling buffoons is NOT a good reason to let them off the hook.
What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
Is Jr an idiot for taking the meeting. I think so. Is what we know he did illegal, most experts are saying no based off what we know. Is what Jr did any different than what Clinton's campaign did with Ukraine? I don't see how. And this is why I question credibility on this shit. If you only bitch when your enemy does it, and ignore it when your friend does it, it begs the question is your criticism or outrage genuine, or just a partisan ploy. I tend to believe it's the latter.
Exactly!!!!!! Nobody gave a flying fuck when people did this against Trump. No wonder the DNC didn't want to share their emails with the FBI post the hack. They would have been shown to be conspiring with foreign entities. If you want to go after Trump for this, fine, but be willing to go after all offenders on this.
Re: US Politics Thread
Keep in mind, this is only the info the Press obtained, including Jrs email. How many other meetings, discussions, emails and all were there. And of them, how many do the FBI & CIA have?
Don Jrs a douche who was out there on TV claiming the Russia connection was completely untrue just weeks after this meeting. And the whole 'She didn't deliver anything' part in unknown as well. She may have clearly indicated they do have the hacked emails, might have put a price onto them we don't know. Kushners a douche too, how many meetings has this guy "forgotten" about.
I agree, Collusion, on its own isn't a crime I don't think. However I heard Conspiracy is. If there's a pattern of meetings & discussions about this, then it goes down that road. Also, gotta wonder "who" leaked this email to the press. And, how many others are there.
Re: US Politics Thread
TheMole wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:And to the point, what information was received? If no transfer took place, ignoring the loose interpretation of value, absolutely nothing of value was transferred.
Attempting to commit a crime is not illegal as long as you fail? Is that your argument? The fact that the Trump campaign is basically a bunch of bumbling buffoons is NOT a good reason to let them off the hook.
What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
Is Jr an idiot for taking the meeting. I think so. Is what we know he did illegal, most experts are saying no based off what we know. Is what Jr did any different than what Clinton's campaign did with Ukraine? I don't see how. And this is why I question credibility on this shit. If you only bitch when your enemy does it, and ignore it when your friend does it, it begs the question is your criticism or outrage genuine, or just a partisan ploy. I tend to believe it's the latter.
But you're just as partisan as anyone. You'll take that anti-Democrat position no matter what it is...
Continually saying that the people are 'idiots' but they're not doing anything illegal isn't enough anymore...
Why do you support people who clearly think they are above the law? Above the law to the point where they wave it in your face like a fart.
And again, I've asked you defenders repeatedly...if there's nothing to hide here, why didn't the Trump parade just answer truthfully the first time they were asked all of these questions? Or even the second?
The only truth that comes out is when the press has them backed into a corner.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I don't like the "collusion isn't a crime" talking point. Maybe "collusion" itself isn't a defined statute, but certainly all the acts that contribute to the idea of collusion certainly fall under a crime. To your point, conspiracy to commit X certainly would get anyone who knowingly worked with a foreign agent to illegally influence an election or receive stolen goods.
I don't like how Jr insulted our intelligence over this. Claiming the meeting was to discuss adoption bullshit, then the email chain shows the entire meeting was setup to get dirt on Clinton. I don't like dishonesty and I don't like it when people insult our intelligence.
Re: US Politics Thread
Because that info came out months ago and nobody gave a fuck in the MSM.
What info are you talking about?
If you take the stance that people aren't caring about what Hillary did or that people only seem to care when someone on the other side of aisle does something wrong...here's 2 reasons why...
1) Hillary didn't fucking win!!! Who cares anymore? Americans only give a shit about the winner.
2) Republicans proved that over the 8 years of Obama's presidency, these tactics work and are very effective. Truth didn't matter when they went after Obama's birth certificate. It also doesn't matter whether Hillary was guilty or not. Republicans didn't care about that...what they cared about is that every time they slandered Hillary, her support went down. One independent voter after another eventually allowed the negative message seep into their skin until they were either voting Republican or simply not voting. The repeated, consistent message.
That's it! That's all this is....Republicans hate the Clintons. No doubt. But they loved winning the presidency even more than they hated the Clintons. To be able to do both at the same time was simply 'cum-in-yo-pants' level Ecstasy. At some point that was going to occur by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
So now that you've proven that these tactics are good and successful tactics, why shouldn't the Democrats use them? You've proven they work! Whether or not Trump did anything illegal, this shit will stick to him for the rest of his life.
Re: US Politics Thread
What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
He was told a foreign national had info that would've been illegal for him to obtain from a foreign national and he still accepted the meeting in order to obtain that information. Let the alleged fact that he did not receive any information not get in the way of the very real fact that he has confirmed, in writing, that he was going into that meeting with the very specific intention of committing the crime of receiving information from a foreign national.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
He was told a foreign national had info that would've been illegal for him to obtain from a foreign national and he still accepted the meeting in order to obtain that information. Let the alleged fact that he did not receive any information not get in the way of the very real fact that he has confirmed, in writing, that he was going into that meeting with the very specific intention of committing the crime of receiving information from a foreign national.
What law was broken? You say taking information from a foreign national was illegal. How so?
I'm not saying I agree with. I think it's sleazy. But how is it illegal? And why is this illegal but Clinton's team meeting with bonafide, indisputable agents of the Ukrainian government to get info on Trump isn't?
Re: US Politics Thread
TheMole wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:What crime? He was told someone had info, he took a meeting. Allegedly, no information was shared. So even using the weak interpretation of campaign contributions, (does paying a British spy to get Russian intelligence fall under your legal understanding) no contribution was given.
He was told a foreign national had info that would've been illegal for him to obtain from a foreign national and he still accepted the meeting in order to obtain that information. Let the alleged fact that he did not receive any information not get in the way of the very real fact that he has confirmed, in writing, that he was going into that meeting with the very specific intention of committing the crime of receiving information from a foreign national.
What law was broken? You say taking information from a foreign national was illegal. How so?
I'm not saying I agree with. I think it's sleazy. But how is it illegal? And why is this illegal but Clinton's team meeting with bonafide, indisputable agents of the Ukrainian government to get info on Trump isn't?
I already did repeatedly....
1) Clinton didn't win.
Now how about you answer someone else's question for a change.
Why doesn't Trump and Co answer questions honestly about supposed 'legal' activities the first time that they've been asked.
