Collusion

[Boxlicker101]

Of course not. Because any alien who would run the following risk by illegally entering this country and illegally working in this country would surely be smarter than to run the additional risk of illegally voting in this country.

It has been proven there was illegal voting in the 2016 election. Not a lot, but some, and there is no way of knowing how many people got away with it. This is particularly so in CA, one of the states that voted heavily for Hillary. I know you've heard of sanctuary cities, but there is a move afoot to make CA into a sanctuary state. The gov. and the majority of the legislature are advocating this. How much of a stretch is it from not enforcing laws against illegals to making no effort to prevent them from voting? Especially since they would be mostly voting for members of the party in power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/us/sanctuary-states-immigration.html

 

[phrodeau]

So on one side we have accusations of foreigners infiltrating our electoral process, and on the other side we have accusations of foreigners infiltrating our electoral process.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So on one side we have accusations of foreigners infiltrating our electoral process, and on the other side we have accusations of foreigners infiltrating our electoral process.

There is a difference, though. It has been verified that there are illegal aliens voting in US elections. But there is no proof of any illegal collusion with Russia in 2016. There are plenty of accusations, but no proof.

 

[phrodeau]

There is a difference, though. It has been verified that there are illegal aliens voting in US elections. But there is no proof of any illegal collusion with Russia in 2016. There are plenty of accusations, but no proof.

Russians hacked the election. President Trump said so.

 

[Hypoxia]

Russians hacked the election. President Trump said so.

I'll repeat myself. The Russian defense minister declared in February that Russia is waging war against the West, which includes the US, last I looked. USAnians supporting this war are committing treason. Trompniks are dancing with the hangman. Is the the suicide of the GOP?

 

[Ishmael]

I'll repeat myself. The Russian defense minister declared in February that Russia is waging war against the West, which includes the US, last I looked. USAnians supporting this war are committing treason. Trompniks are dancing with the hangman. Is the the suicide of the GOP?

You are insane.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən - noun
Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming

Used in a sentence:

Trump Jr. admitted to collusion with a foreign adversary when he released the email showing that he met with Russian agents after being offered documents that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”

No, he didn't admit to collusion, he admitted to an attempt to collude, but since nothing useful came of the meeting it apparently doesn't matter.

He also admitted to an attempt to break the law. But again, since he didn't actually get the information he was meeting her to get, it apparently doesn't matter.

I've no idea if a mere attempt to break the law is illegal or not in connection to CFR § 110.20.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, he didn't admit to collusion, he admitted to an attempt to collude, but since nothing useful came of the meeting it apparently doesn't matter.

He also admitted to an attempt to break the law. But again, since he didn't actually get the information he was meeting her to get, it apparently doesn't matter.

I've no idea if a mere attempt to break the law is illegal or not in connection to CFR § 110.20.

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Well....

Veselnitskaya brought with her a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was the flow of illicit funds to the Democrats, Akhmetshin said. Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump associates and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign, he said.

“This could be a good issue to expose how the DNC is accepting bad money,” Akhmetshin recalled her saying.

Trump Jr. asked the attorney if she had sufficient evidence to back up her claims, including whether she could demonstrate the flow of the money. But Veselnitskaya said the Trump campaign would need to research it more. After that, Trump Jr. lost interest, according to Akhmetshin.

“They couldn’t wait for the meeting to end,” he said.

Akhmetshin said he does not know if Veselnitskaya’s documents were provided by the Russian government. He said he thinks she left the materials with the Trump associates. It was unclear if she handed the documents to anyone in the room or simply left them behind, he said.

https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a

 

[Aglaopheme]

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

If the same gunman got into the bank yet found the safe empty or didn't like the contents, then what?

 

[Phelia]

Not judgemental at all, are you?

Ishmael

I certainly can't stop you from thinking whatever you want but it isn't a personal judgment, just an observation.

In virtually every topical thread in which we've crossed paths your arguments have been impairment-based, visceral if you will, and as such are [lonely]/[pathetic]/[sexist]/[drunk]/[untintelligibly stupid]. You have essentially admitted to same in everything you've ever posted here. You may want to consider that before you go getting your knickers all in a twist.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

How about conspiracy to rob?

 

[Phelia]

If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I research legal issues all the time, but that one kind of throws me.

Hoags, yer killin' me. Does this really not change the math for you at all? I'll leave it for more experience legal minds than ours to decide, but even taking illegality of the meeting or conduct surrounding it off the table, this is extremely troubling.

We know now, with 100% certainty, that DJT (and very likely Kushner and Manafort - in fact, you'd have to work hard to convince yourself they didn't as they were forwarded the email chain, but I suspect that's the sort of thing you'd nitpick) knew about a Russian government attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton and interfere with our election, and said nothing, even after everything we've learned in the months that have followed, and the unrest it's caused the country. Quite the opposite, he went on to vehemently deny it again and again and again, painting those with suspicions as completely crazy. We know now that those were all lies. All his supporters can do is applaud his "transparency" as he changes his story each time his hand is forced (and there are still inconsistencies).

And no, it's not a smoking gun in the president's hands. But part of the reason this is so concerning is that he's proven himself a complete nepotist with no understanding of the importance of divesting from his businesses and addressing conflicts of interest. This family is destroying our democracy, and yes, you are still defending them. It breaks my heart and I can't understand why.

 

[RobDownSouth]

preemptive strike on the obvious

How about conspiracy to rob?

Everything's a conspiracy to Rob. You should know that.
*nods*

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Well....



https://apnews.com/dceed1008d8f45afb314aca65797762a

If the same gunman got into the bank yet found the safe empty or didn't like the contents, then what?

Let's return to the actual substantive issue of ANY derogatory information on a political opponent constituting a LEGALLY defined "thing of value" subject to "in-kind" contribution reporting requirements and prohibited by distribution from foreign nationals.

Posted mere minutes ago: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86969830&postcount=251

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How about conspiracy to rob?

Not if he was acting alone.

 

[Sean]

Not if he was acting alone.

What if he took, oh, I dunno, his father's campaign manager and son in law to the bank with him?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Let's return to the actual substantive issue of ANY derogatory information on a political opponent constituting a LEGALLY defined "thing of value" subject to "in-kind" contribution reporting requirements and prohibited by distribution from foreign nationals.

Posted mere minutes ago: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86969830&postcount=251

He'd "love it!"

Posted mere minutes ago:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86969770&postcount=84

 

[Boxlicker101]

Russians hacked the election. President Trump said so.

This may be true, but does such an act amount to illegal collusion? If an agent of a foreign government comes to the US and dishes some dirt on a political candidate, is that illegal. Keep in mind that a non-citizen, even an illegal alien, has the Constitutional right of freedom of speech. As for Trump Jr. not remembering the conversation, keep in mind it happened over a year before he was asked about it.

 

[phrodeau]

This may be true, but does such an act amount to illegal collusion? If an agent of a foreign government comes to the US and dishes some dirt on a political candidate, is that illegal. Keep in mind that a non-citizen, even an illegal alien, has the Constitutional right of freedom of speech. As for Trump Jr. not remembering the conversation, keep in mind it happened over a year before he was asked about it.

So how many Russians came to the US and illegally voted for Trump? Seems like there were more than a few Russians at Trump Tower in recent times.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So how many Russians came to the US and illegally voted for Trump? Seems like there were more than a few Russians at Trump Tower in recent times.

Probably not as many as there were illegals who voted for Silly Hilly. And, remember those Russians were not in the US illegally.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Hoags, yer killin' me. Does this really not change the math for you at all? I'll leave it for more experience legal minds than ours to decide, but even taking illegality of the meeting or conduct surrounding it off the table, this is extremely troubling.

We know now, with 100% certainty, that DJT (and very likely Kushner and Manafort - in fact, you'd have to work hard to convince yourself they didn't as they were forwarded the email chain, but I suspect that's the sort of thing you'd nitpick) knew about a Russian government attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton and interfere with our election, and said nothing, even after everything we've learned in the months that have followed, and the unrest it's caused the country. Quite the opposite, he went on to vehemently deny it again and again and again, painting those with suspicions as completely crazy. We know now that those were all lies. All his supporters can do is applaud his "transparency" as he changes his story each time his hand is forced (and there are still inconsistencies).

And no, it's not a smoking gun in the president's hands. But part of the reason this is so concerning is that he's proven himself a complete nepotist with no understanding of the importance of divesting from his businesses and addressing conflicts of interest. This family is destroying our democracy, and yes, you are still defending them. It breaks my heart and I can't understand why.

There are two things going on here that have been going on for the greater part of my lifetime, and they never cease to drive me crazy.

Liberal and conservative partisans routinely and appropriately profess their innocence to facially bogus contorted charges of criminal violations (if not ethically questionable behavior) and then turn right around and find similar behaviors on the part of their opponents which they then use to bludgeon THEM!!

No better example of this practice is the "Clinton Ukranian Collusion" which Sean Hannity as been running on FNC EVERY DAMNED NIGHT for god knows how long.

A source familiar the matter said Chalupa "informally" told at least one committee staffer last year that Ukrainian officials had become concerned about Trump's campaign and his ties to Russia and suggested having the DNC work with the Ukrainian embassy to bring some damning information to light.

The source said Chalupa was told "unless there is something public, there is nothing we can do" and that the DNC "never got anything from her" or "met with the Ukrainians."

"We never got any actual information. It didn't go beyond running by someone in a hall way and hearing rumors," the source said. "It was hearsay in the hallway conversation, there was never any formal conversation or paper research."

Politico reported in January that Ukrainian government officials worked with at least one Democratic operative during the 2016 campaign to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump. The story centers on Chalupa, who told Politico that she had a network of people in Kiev and Washington -- including Ukrainian government officials -- who would pass her information that she then wanted to pass to the DNC and Clinton campaign.

"I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa told Politico.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/12/politics/dnc-ukraine-trump-material/index.html

And the take away from this nonsense IS simply this: If the Chalupa/Trump, Ukranian/Russian shit flinging obsession is LEGAL, then shut the fuck UP about it......OR.......make damn certain your outrage is fully expressed EVERY TIME it occurs NO MATTER WHO IS DOING IT. My own preference, believe it or not, is that people would just shut up about it, but, hey, even I recognize my own naivete.

I'd like to think that the lack of "equivalency" of media and partisan outrage is what is motivating Hannity with regard to the Ukraine story, but I can't quite get there, and at any rate, that certainly isn't coming through as the thrust of his complaint.

It's the usual bullshit whining from Dems and Pubs alike: dirty politics is only dirty when it's done to me.

Personally, I don't tend to vote that way. But many people do, which is why it is effective and likely will remain largely legal. And the ONLY thing I am going to DEFEND is OUR collective right to keep it legal despite its unseemliness. You know, just like "hate speech."

So, NO!! You can NEVER take legality "off the table."

And regardless to what degree this excrement flinging exercise drives me nuts or offends your sensibilities, the idea that a single individual, "family" or even two morally corrupt political parties are systematically "destroying our democracy" is the most patently nonsensical hysteria contradicted by nothing more than 200 years of American history OF our EXTREMELY DURABLE resiliency.

Our gridlocking preoccupation with this crap is most certainly impeding our ability to address problems regarding adequate healthcare, crumbling infrastructure and growing a healthy economy.

But even that crippling disability is a long, long way from destroying democracy.

 

[Wrong Element]

There is a difference, though. It has been verified that there are illegal aliens voting in US elections. But there is no proof of any illegal collusion with Russia in 2016. There are plenty of accusations, but no proof.

You've clearly been in a coma for a week. Anyone want to catch him up?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What if he took, oh, I dunno, his father's campaign manager and son in law to the bank with him?

He'd "love it!"

Posted mere minutes ago:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=86969770&postcount=84

Jesus fuck....

Please show me the relevant statute where a conspiracy to "not commit a crime" (sorry, Sean, we're back to discussing relevant relevant campaign activities rather than armed robbery) is, in FACT, a crime.

Nothing about that meeting INCLUDING THE INFORMATION EXCHANGE ALLEGED BY Akhmetshin constitutes a crime.

Show me the statute or kindly desist.

 

[Wrong Element]

One of the problems we're dealing with right now is that the Constitution was structured with a couple of things in mind:

1. Human nature being what it is, the United States would eventually find itself in a situation where someone who was corrupt or incompetent or both would be the president.

2. But if that were to happen, the legislative branch would be there to provide a check, up to and including impeachment.


That second part is where things have gone awry. Trump and company absolutely do not fear that the Congress will ever start asking questions, or that his supporters will ever wean themselves off the Kool-Aid. This is a point I've seen others make, which is that the stuff we now know is true about Trump and Russia would have seemed like postcards from the loony left only weeks ago -- and yet, literally no one has changed their mind. Not a single person I know of has gone "Wow, I was always skeptical about these accusations, but this is really troubling stuff." People are defending things -- or shrugging and going "Hey, it's not illegal!" -- that they almost certainly would have found beyond the pale when it was all purely hypothetical.

The one thing that can stop them is the wrath of the voters, keeping in mind Trump was elected with a minority, he did his best among the old (meaning more of his voters will die before November 2020 than Clinton's voters), and that he has shown no interest in trying to expand his base.

All of which explains the other big project right now for the White House: the ferocious effort to ensure that the GOP will never have to face a free and fair national election ever again.