Yes, you are.No, degen water boys are pretty easy to see through.
See? You can't admit it even though Trump Jr. explicitly admitted it.
Well he claims your side, Jhhnn. So by association you are part and parcel of that troll. You can denounce him or claim him.Uhh, nobody on "the correct political team" is claiming Agent. He's just a very special troll, here to rave in a degenerate fashion about all the evil racist degens & their supposed enablers. His arguments take the classic form of Alt-right trolls in every respect other than the POV. He's not just trolling Libs- he's trolling everybody.
You're right about conservatives being unreachable by logical argument. Where you and agent go wrong is how you yourselves react defectively to the facts on a emotional level. You lack understanding and the compassion that necessarily accompanies it. You and he react just like conservatives, absolutely certain that how you react is sane rather than the opposite. You are essentially too emotionally filled with hatred to contain it. You're basically a wimp, like you are the only person who ever had sand kicked in his or her face. Get a grip. Grieve. The loss was profound and enormous and I know your pain. You will feel much better as a nobody.He is right in this case.
What? What I read was a denouncement if I've ever seen one. Am I wrong?Well he claims your side, Jhhnn. So by association you are part and parcel of that troll. You can denounce him or claim him.
Pick your poison.
So the meeting was public? No, it was secret. Check. Were they conspiring against Hillary? Yup. Check. So we have him admitting to a secret conspiracy.No, meeting on the chance to get valid information about a rival is not collusion.
Collusion = secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
That did not happen that we know of. Claiming otherwise is wrong.
So the meeting was public? No, it was secret. Check. Were they conspiring against Hillary? Yup. Check. So we have him admitting to a secret conspiracy.
While there is no evidence available to the public that proves any crime was committed, what his tweet does prove beyond a shadow of any doubt is that many people in Trump's cabinet committed perjury during their security screening.I'll say we disagree and leave it at that. I personally will just wait for the people that actually know something to make the real call, not some guy ( you ) on the internet with only a small part of the data.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/collusion-trump-russia-campaign.html
What is collusion?
In general parlance, “collusion” means working together, usually in secret, to do something illicit. But the term has no defined legal meaning. Lawyers instead talk about the offense of “conspiracy.”
What is conspiracy?
In criminal law, the offense of conspiracy is generally an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime — whether or not they do. A powerful tool for prosecutors, conspiracy charges permit holding each conspirator responsible for illegal acts committed by others in the circle as part of the arrangement.
Is the meeting enough to prove conspiracy?
The events made public in the past few days are not enough to charge conspiracy, said Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor. Still, he said, the revelations are important because if further evidence of coordination emerges, the contents of the emails and the fact of the meeting would help establish an intent to work with Russia on influencing the election.
“What this email string establishes is that Don Jr. was aware that the Russian government wanted to help the Trump campaign and he welcomed support from the Russian government,” Mr. Mariotti said.
What else is needed?
Evidence of an agreement to violate a specific criminal statute — in other words, a conspiracy to commit a certain crime.
“Anytime you are talking about coordinating or collusion, you are talking about the possibility of conspiracy charges,” said Samuel W. Buell, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law at Duke University. “But conspiracy is not a crime that floats by itself in the air. There has to be an underlying federal offense that is being conspired to be committed.”
Was election law violated?
A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Legal experts struggled to identify any precedent for prosecutions under that statute, but that phrase is common in other federal criminal statutes covering such crimes as bribery and threats, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law professor at the University of California, Irvine. Courts have held, in other contexts, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.
Robert Bauer, an election-law specialist who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration, argued that this statute covers the Russian government’s paying its spies and hackers to collect and disseminate negative information about Mrs. Clinton to help Mr. Trump win the 2016 election.
“There are firms in the United States that do negative research and sell it to campaigns,” Mr. Bauer argued. “There is no way to take information someone has compiled using resources and say it’s just information and dirt. It’s valuable information and counts as a contribution when given to or distributed for the benefit of a campaign.”
While there is no evidence available to the public that proves any crime was committed, what his tweet does prove beyond a shadow of any doubt is that many people in Trump's cabinet committed perjury during their security screening.
So he's wrong?Moving the goal post...
Yes, you are.
You're right about conservatives being unreachable by logical argument. Where you and agent go wrong is how you yourselves react defectively to the facts on a emotional level. You lack understanding and the compassion that necessarily accompanies it. You and he react just like conservatives, absolutely certain that how you react is sane rather than the opposite. You are essentially too emotionally filled with hatred to contain it. You're basically a wimp, like you are the only person who ever had sand kicked in his or her face. Get a grip. Grieve. The loss was profound and enormous and I know your pain. You will feel much better as a nobody.
Must be hard being so persecuted by all the dumb people around you. You tell them all the time how dumb they are and yet they never seem to understand. You are strong though so you will carry on doing the same thing every day because...
Both sides have trolls. Agent is beyond a troll. He has a anger that he needs to express to those that he hates. His goal is not to provoke so much as to vent his anger and take out his hated on others.
I didn't move any goalpost. You have lost track of our conversation. It all started with me pointing out how you used the term "wrecked" to describe what people are claiming Trump/Russia did to the election when nobody is claiming they wrecked the election. People are claiming they colluded to influence the election, and there is a big difference. Once you stop with the "wrecked" straw man, and focus on the actual claim about influence, you are forced to acknowledge that Junior flat out admitted that he tried to do just that.Moving the goal post...
You are the most triggered little snowflake there is. Its part of your simple psychology to point to others and say they have what you have - an incredibly thin skin and the inability to see others will live a different life then you. You are shit.
"I'm not trump" is a pretty compelling case, though "I love racists" is a better one in various states.
Sure, like people who spread that american healthcare costs twice as much as the rest of the first world because it's "innovative".
I didn't move any goalpost. You have lost track of our conversation. It all started with me pointing out how you used the term "wrecked" to describe what people are claiming Trump/Russia did to the election when nobody is claiming they wrecked the election. People are claiming they colluded to influence the election, and there is a big difference. Once you stop with the "wrecked" straw man, and focus on the actual claim about influence, you are forced to acknowledge that Junior flat out admitted that he tried to do just that.
Maybe you should try the 2-ply skin next time. Wow! Were you able to compose this awesome rebuttal in one sitting or did you need a few safe space times outs before you became awoke af?
It was so compelling that she and the Dims have continued losing elections.
How is lying under oath not perjury?"Influencing an election" isn't a crime as far as I'm aware and influencing the election is exactly what candidates are trying to do. What you would need to demonstrate is that Trump's team have broken some actual law like campaign finance laws (accepting something of value from Russian like opposition intel would be considered a campaign donation since it has monetary value). Others have already cited the possible false statements angle.
If nothing else let's stop using the word "treason" since nothing alleged so far meets the criteria for that; the term has a specific meaning and criteria that need to be met and nothing so far rises to that level. Just because it's a harder sounding charge that you'd like to attach to a political rival doesn't make it true, just like it wasn't true when Bill Clinton was accused of "perjury" for lying about Monica Lewinski. Bill Clinton's lying under oath wasn't perjury and Trump colluding with Russians to damage an election opponent isn't treason. It's unethical, speaks volumes to his lack of character and fitness for the job he sought, and lots of other things but it's not treason.
How is lying under oath not perjury?
As for treason, you'll notice I haven't used the word. Treason won't be a legitimate claim unless we find evidence that Team Trump solicited help from the Russians in exchange for favorable treatment that goes against America's best interest.
Regardless, colluding with a foreign power to sway an American election in your favor is shameful, whether it is criminal or not.
How is lying under oath not perjury?
As for treason, you'll notice I haven't used the word. Treason won't be a legitimate claim unless we find evidence that Team Trump solicited help from the Russians in exchange for favorable treatment that goes against America's best interest.
Regardless, colluding with a foreign power to sway an American election in your favor is shameful, whether it is criminal or not.
Perjury is a subset of lying under oath. The reason it wasn't in Clinton's case is because one of the requirements of perjury is materiality - basically what you're lying about must be relevant to the charges against you. If you were on trial for reckless driving it wouldn't be perjury if you lied under oath about your weight or relationship status, but would be if you said you weren't driving the car when video evidence proves you were. Bill Clinton's lie under oath about boinking Monica wasn't material to investigations about the Whitewater real estate scandal, so it's not perjury but was still lying under oath.
Still not treason even if you had ironclad proof of your "Team Trump solicited help from the Russians" statement. First it's not a truism that getting him elected over Clinton was "against America's best interest." You can disagree with the choice of voters (and I do) and think it was a terrible choice but he won the election nonetheless so pretty much by the defining tenets of democracy him winning was evidence his election was the "best interest" of the country.
Secondly, the Constitution clearly spells out the requirements for treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Trump didn't levy war against the U.S., nor is Russia an enemy in the legal definition of a combatant we're at war against. Even if they were, what he's alleged to have done with the Russians still doesn't make his actions "giving them aid and comfort." If anything the Russians would have given Trump aid and comfort, not vice versa.
I'll let degenerates play the Real victim.
Seems I'm not the one always super butthurt by straightforward facts.
I've never needed a safe space. Most liberals I know dont need safe spaces. Here is the difference...
A liberal is mad that someone uses a racial slur. The alt right calls this person a snowflake.
A conservative is mad that someone has sex with someone else. The alt right thinks this isnt being a snowflake.
the irony in this shit is so thick.