How deep is the rabbit hole?

[Ishmael]

Last night I was listening to a democrat attorney from the Obama WH try to make the case that Jr's actions were violations of the campaign finance laws!!!!!!!! Really?

How much is zero information worth? Put a value on it and let the Trump campaign send the 'donation' back to the donor.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

She paid him???



He's a gigolo?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

National Review. Amazing.

The fucking NATIONAL REVIEW said that?

 

[zipman]

Do I have to put you on ignore?


Do you not get that the NRO became the leader of the Elite Republican #NeverTrump movement from the announcement of his candidacy? OF COURSE THEY'RE CALLING FOR AN INVESTIGATION! I listed to David French on Beck and he said, no one has done in wrong here, but we need to keep investigating him!

So, please, if you are going to be so ill-informed on this subject (as you are on several others) don't talk to me, talk to busybody. In short, GO FUCK YOURSELF! I don't want to have a damned thing to do with you.

You kept appealing to Ishmael to step in and talk some sense to when it comes to your religion. Why didn't he? Because he thinks I'm right and you're wrong. You're the one who will never entertain new information...

If you attempt to communicate with me one more time, you go on the list with the regular trolls. I'm tired of you following me and badgering me. I'm leaving you alone!

Wow, you're really showing your true colors this morning.

At least everyone can see that your whole "I only put people who call me names" routine is a load of bullshit, much like everything else you post.

As always, you're a hypocrite. You are the one who won't entertain any information that doesn't conform to the narrative you desperately want to believe in, despite facts to the contrary.

You must be a real snowflake if a few facts have you this upset first thing in the morning.

 

[Rightguide]

Last night I was listening to a democrat attorney from the Obama WH try to make the case that Jr's actions were violations of the campaign finance laws!!!!!!!! Really?

How much is zero information worth? Put a value on it and let the Trump campaign send the 'donation' back to the donor.

Ishmael

Was he even an official member of the campaign when the meeting took place? Crazy Howard Dean even called the kid's actions treason.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Last night I was listening to a democrat attorney from the Obama WH try to make the case that Jr's actions were violations of the campaign finance laws!!!!!!!! Really?

How much is zero information worth? Put a value on it and let the Trump campaign send the 'donation' back to the donor.

Ishmael

You are assuming that no information was given. Baby steps. At least you've come around to the fact that the meeting did in fact happen.

The fucking NATIONAL REVIEW said that?

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

 

[Aglaopheme]

Then there is the law that Kushner broke when he failed to disclose this meeting.

 

[Pookie]

You are assuming that no information was given. Baby steps. At least you've come around to the fact that the meeting did in fact happen.



http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...oof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia

Doesn't matter if info was given or not. Based on the law, all that has to be shown is he solicited something of value. Whether he got it or not isn't relevant in this situation.

 

[Wrong Element]

Last night I was listening to a democrat attorney from the Obama WH try to make the case that Jr's actions were violations of the campaign finance laws!!!!!!!! Really?

How much is zero information worth? Put a value on it and let the Trump campaign send the 'donation' back to the donor.

Ishmael

Let's keep in mind that the statement that "zero information" was acquired in the meeting

1) comes courtesy of the people who were in that meeting, who

2) have a fairly obvious motive for saying that now, and who

3) have shown themselves to be chronic liars in the past, especially regarding this very subject.


And it's certainly an interesting coincidence that immediately after this nothing of a meeting took place, Trump made his first-ever tweet referencing Clinton's alleged missing emails.

Doesn't matter if info was given or not. Based on the law, all that has to be shown is he solicited something of value. Whether he got it or not isn't relevant in this situation.

If I show up for a drug buy, and I'm met by narcotics officers instead, I'm probably not going to get very far with a "Did you actually find any drugs on me??" defense.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Doesn't matter if info was given or not. Based on the law, all that has to be shown is he solicited something of value. Whether he got it or not isn't relevant in this situation.

I understand that. I know a little something about campaign finance laws and the FEC. My point, which I didn't spell out clearly enough, was Ish believing was Jr and the Russians have to say about what occurred during the meeting.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ha! What WE said!

 

[Pookie]

I understand that. I know a little something about campaign finance laws and the FEC. My point, which I didn't spell out clearly enough, was Ish believing was Jr and the Russians have to say about what occurred during the meeting.

Ish is in full deflection mode. His nonsensical post regarding my posting of the law clearly displays how rabid he's become about this.

 

[Pookie]

If I show up for a drug buy, and I'm met by narcotics officers instead, I'm probably not going to get very far with a "Did you actually find any drugs on me??" defense.

Bingo.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

Ish is in full deflection mode. His nonsensical post regarding my posting of the law clearly displays how rabid he's become about this.

It's the syphilis. *nods*

 

[Aglaopheme]

Ish is in full deflection mode. His nonsensical post regarding my posting of the law clearly displays how rabid he's become about this.

I'm waiting to see if anything will ever tip that apple cart. Perhaps a photo of Trump being branded with the Russian flag while perched on Putin's desk?

 

[Rightguide]

Then there is the law that Kushner broke when he failed to disclose this meeting.

According to Alan Dershowitz, a well known liberal professor of law at Harvard, stated in an article on July 11:

"The first issue that must be addressed by Mueller is whether any existing criminal statutes would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if such collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime.

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning. Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.” No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place. And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity. Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel. It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws. Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections. But it is not currently a crime."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...crime-or-merely-political-sin-it-depends.html

 

[Sean]

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity. Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel.

Nope.

 

[Pookie]

I'm waiting to see if anything will ever tip that apple cart. Perhaps a photo of Trump being branded with the Russian flag while perched on Putin's desk?

I think Manafort is the wildcard. If a deal to avoid serious jail time can be reached, we'll definitely see how deep all of this goes. IMO, no way Junior and Manafort didn't have The Donald intimately informed. They aren't smart enough to have isolated him from their activities.

 

[phrodeau]

According to Alan Dershowitz, a well known liberal professor of law at Harvard, stated in an article on July 11:

"The first issue that must be addressed by Mueller is whether any existing criminal statutes would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if such collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime.

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning. Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.” No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place. And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity. Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel. It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws. Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections. But it is not currently a crime."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...crime-or-merely-political-sin-it-depends.html

Failure to disclose on Standard Form 86 section 20B.6 is a crime. It doesn't matter whether the meeting accomplished squat. The meeting took place, he didn't disclose it, therefore he is a criminal.

Want to see it? Here's the link: https://www.gsa.gov/portal/forms/download/116390

Pages 76 and 121.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Perg bought it hook, line and sinker, but why does that not surprise me?

So did the National Review Online. Did that surprise you, too?

Do I have to put you on ignore?

So, please, if you are going to be so ill-informed on this subject (as you are on several others) don't talk to me, talk to busybody. In short, GO FUCK YOURSELF! I don't want to have a damned thing to do with you.

If you attempt to communicate with me one more time, you go on the list with the regular trolls.

I'm tired of you following me and badgering me.

I'm leaving you alone!

https://media.tenor.com/images/486c5af4f5227a2d8e72fc23415e9a09/tenor.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/wv89eetV1HbFe/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oKIP8kNuTJJL3zT0I/source.gif

 

[Wrong Element]

According to Alan Dershowitz, a well known liberal professor of law at Harvard, stated in an article on July 11:

"The first issue that must be addressed by Mueller is whether any existing criminal statutes would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if such collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime.

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning. Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.” No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place. And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity. Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel. It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws. Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections. But it is not currently a crime."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...crime-or-merely-political-sin-it-depends.html

I don't actually disagree with much of this, but Dershowitz is also making a point which seems lost on a lot of the more ferocious Trumpkins, which is that something can be both legal and "wrong." I assume most of Trump's use of the presidency to line his and his family's pockets is also technically legal, but fear of blowback from Congress and the public, not to mention respect for norms and innate decency, has been a deterrent to this ever being much of a problem before now.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think Manafort is the wildcard. If a deal to avoid serious jail time can be reached, we'll definitely see how deep all of this goes. IMO, no way Junior and Manafort didn't have The Donald intimately informed. They aren't smart enough to have isolated him from their activities.

Not to mention Kushner, the one person in this cast of characters who already knows a little something about federal prison and the desirability of avoiding it. His legal team seems to be quietly competent, and he doesn't have the Trump family gene of having to constantly run his mouth.

 

[Pookie]

Not to mention Kushner, the one person in this cast of characters who already knows a little something about federal prison and the desirability of avoiding it. His legal team seems to be quietly competent, and he doesn't have the Trump family gene of having to constantly run his mouth.

That is true.

 

[Ishmael]

Let's keep in mind that the statement that "zero information" was acquired in the meeting

1) comes courtesy of the people who were in that meeting, who

2) have a fairly obvious motive for saying that now, and who

3) have shown themselves to be chronic liars in the past, especially regarding this very subject.


And it's certainly an interesting coincidence that immediately after this nothing of a meeting took place, Trump made his first-ever tweet referencing Clinton's alleged missing emails.







If I show up for a drug buy, and I'm met by narcotics officers instead, I'm probably not going to get very far with a "Did you actually find any drugs on me??" defense.

So what's your solution to get those answer's? Waterboard them?

Ishmael

 

[Que]

And it's certainly an interesting coincidence that immediately after this nothing of a meeting took place, Trump made his first-ever tweet referencing Clinton's alleged missing emails.

That is interesting, if you buy interesting you mean exculpatory. If suddenly they have this inside track to her emails why would he need to publicly state that he'd like to see them released?

By that time, btw, the DNC emails already had been and the first "it's the ROOSKIES!!!" trial vbaoon was already flying.

Besides his joke that obviously went over every Democrat's head was about all the emails that she and her legal team deleted despite knowing or should have assumed were subject to a future subpoena which would require that she preserve them.

Those are unrelated to the alleged hack / probable inside release and if the Russians have them they never did release them so so much for collusion on thay.