Maybe Democrats are starting to get it:

[agent00f]

Except I'm not claiming to be a victim. Or do you now think you have read that as well?

Comical right after whining about being victimized by simple observations.

It's also ironic that the things you project onto me describe you quite well. I would tell you to go back and re-read what has been written, but you have already shown you can't understand what you read.

It's super-easy to understand how conservative water boys operate.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Trollin' through, huh?

 

[agent00f]

Trollin' through, huh?

He's right thought that many centrist D's relate more to his sort than factual reality or the people observing it. It's that relationship which keeps liberalism on the back foot in this country.

 

[JSt0rm]

Irony is pretty thick along with the ignorance and mental issues. It's awesome how differing opinions are now called racism. I'm sure next it will be dog-whistle, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe, or any other cutesy little term to bully and intimidate people into the same intolerant delusion. You can huff and puff all you want but it still doesn't change the facts about how Liberals are overwhelmingly ill-equipped to handle reality and differing views about several core beliefs of the modern Liberal. I'm surprised when a day goes by that some left-leaning big mouth doesn't say or write something that is sexist, racist,homophobic,xenophobic, or calls for violence against right leaning individuals. The MSM ignores this but goes into fits because the WH intern picture doesn't appear to be minority or diverse enough.

Look how fucking triggered you are from my example. Fucking snowflake.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

We were discussing Collusion and Conspiracy and you flipped over into perjury when you were proven wrong on the collusion and conspiracy. Simple you moved the goal post. Or should I say changed to a different subject.

Of course "Jr. " tried to influence the election along with every other election campaign. That is what it is all about.

 

[dank69]

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 never said nor implied that Trump getting elected was the criteria for treason. I said if they are providing Russia something in return for their help, and that something was bad for America, then that would probably qualify as treason. For example, I think you would agree that giving top secret information to Russia in exchange for their help would qualify as treason.

 

[woolfe9998]

Most of the shittier conservative trolls that got banned here acted poorly for a long time before they got the boot.

He's a shitposter and now he's one of only two people on here I have on ignore. It's way better this way.

I've had him on and off ignore. Presently on. The only one for me. I recommend that others do the same. There is no other solution for someone like him.

 

[dank69]

We were discussing Collusion and Conspiracy and you flipped over into perjury when you were proven wrong on the collusion and conspiracy. Simple you moved the goal post. Or should I say changed to a different subject.

Of course "Jr. " tried to influence the election along with every other election campaign. That is what it is all about.

I wasn't proven wrong and I didn't "flip over" to perjury. You said there wasn't evidence of collusion and I showed you that Jr. admitted to collusion. You just don't understand any of this because you don't understand terms like straw man, moving the goalposts, or diversion. If you understood these terms you would acknowledge that you were guilty of using a straw man, you wouldn't have accused me of moving goalposts when you meant to accuse me of diverting, and you would also understand that I didn't divert since I wasn't trying to avoid the topic at hand. You really packed an impressive amount of fail into such a short post. Well, impressive for lesser posters than yourself, but you always make it look so easy so it's completely expected now.

 

[glenn1]

I never said not implied that Trump getting elected was the criteria for treason. I said if they are providing Russia something in return for their help, and that something was bad for America, then that would probably qualify as treason. For example, I think you would agree that giving top secret information to Russia in exchange for their help would qualify as treason.

No I wouldn't since POTUS can declassify at will. It would probably be a poor decision and might cause political consequences but still not treason. Most other examples you'll likely come up with will likely be the same kind of political decisions that are within his authority to make. Since he's the elected executive there's very little he could do which would rightly be called treason. Maybe if Congress declared war and he refused to fight or surrendered.

 

[Sunburn74]

We were discussing Collusion and Conspiracy and you flipped over into perjury when you were proven wrong on the collusion and conspiracy. Simple you moved the goal post. Or should I say changed to a different subject.

Of course "Jr. " tried to influence the election along with every other election campaign. That is what it is all about.

This is not a toughie. The guy admitted to meeting with russian operatives for political information and we know for a fact that he did. Whether or not the information was useful or not is besides the point.

Today the narrative isn't one of whether was was collusion; the question is more how much collusion occurred. That is the only truly objective view on this issue and it explains the behavior of the Trump administration perfectly.

 

[woolfe9998]

"Treason" as defined in federal law is always going to be a non-starter here. The statute requires aiding and abetting an "enemy" of the US. Our courts have defined "enemy" as a nation with which we are at war, either declared or at least openly. It doesn't cover "cold war" disputes and tensions. So nothing Trump or his people did in relation to Russia is "treason" in the legal sense.

There are, however, loads of other statutes which could apply. One of the broadest is "honest services fraud," codified here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346

It means depriving the public of the honest services of a public servant. So if, for example, Trump agreed to alter certain US policies in Russia's favor in exchange for their help winning him the election, that would be a fraud upon the American public, namely, that Trump was secretly acting on behalf of a foreign government rather than the American people, and doing so for personal gain. Many forms of public corruption fall under this rather broad statute. The most common example is acting on behalf of a private donor in a "quid pro quo" arrangement. Those cases are often prosecuted as honest services fraud. It's conceptually not that different than acting on behalf of a foreign government in a quid pro quo manner.

Summary for those with ADD: it is a crime to implement policies with the goal of personal gain rather than public benefit.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Why, it never occurred to me that the super sekrit hot shit dirt that the Russians offered me on Hillary was obtained via espionage! I mean, I had no idea! Really!"

 

[brycejones]

We were discussing Collusion and Conspiracy and you flipped over into perjury when you were proven wrong on the collusion and conspiracy. Simple you moved the goal post. Or should I say changed to a different subject.

Of course "Jr. " tried to influence the election along with every other election campaign. That is what it is all about.

I believe you can be this stupid.

The emails that uday released show he knew the meeting was for the purpose of obtaining information critical of Clinton as part of Russia's support for the campaign. His response was "love it". Do you question the contents of the email chain he released?

 

[Jhhnn]

I believe you can be this stupid.

The emails that uday released show he knew the meeting was for the purpose of obtaining information critical of Clinton as part of Russia's support for the campaign. His response was "love it". Do you question the contents of the email chain he released?

What it amounted to was conspiracy to solicit campaign contributions from a foreign entity. Contributions don't have to be money but can take many forms. It's a violation of campaign finance law.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What? What I read was a denouncement if I've ever seen one. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

Agentoaf is poison. He is toxic. He represents nearly everything that is wrong with the left. When the left shuns morons like him and begins to build a decent future with a decent candidate, change will happen. Until then they will be mired in morons who believe that character assassination is a valid response to anyone that doesn't subscribe to their beliefs.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, you are wrong.

Agentoaf is poison. He is toxic. He represents nearly everything that is wrong with the left. When the left shuns morons like him and begins to build a decent future with a decent candidate, change will happen. Until then they will be mired in morons who believe that character assassination is a valid response to anyone that doesn't subscribe to their beliefs.

"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.", Looked like a denouncement to me. Was that not strong enough. To tell you the truth I thought your remarks about him were rather flattering. He is what is wrong with the authoritarian left. The problem with where you are coming from in my opinion, is that you treat his contemptuousness with contempt. It's hard to know who is who.

 

[pcgeek11]

I wasn't proven wrong and I didn't "flip over" to perjury. You said there wasn't evidence of collusion and I showed you that Jr. admitted to collusion. You just don't understand any of this because you don't understand terms like straw man, moving the goalposts, or diversion. If you understood these terms you would acknowledge that you were guilty of using a straw man, you wouldn't have accused me of moving goalposts when you meant to accuse me of diverting, and you would also understand that I didn't divert since I wasn't trying to avoid the topic at hand. You really packed an impressive amount of fail into such a short post. Well, impressive for lesser posters than yourself, but you always make it look so easy so it's completely expected now.

Wrong.

 

[pcgeek11]

I believe you can be this stupid.

The emails that uday released show he knew the meeting was for the purpose of obtaining information critical of Clinton as part of Russia's support for the campaign. His response was "love it". Do you question the contents of the email chain he released?

So. I know that and so does everybody else. That is not illegal.

 

[dank69]

Yes, you are wrong.

Agentoaf is poison. He is toxic. He represents nearly everything that is wrong with the left. When the left shuns morons like him and begins to build a decent future with a decent candidate, change will happen. Until then they will be mired in morons who believe that character assassination is a valid response to anyone that doesn't subscribe to their beliefs.

I'm speaking for everyone on the left when I say go fuck yourself.

 

[brycejones]

So. I know that and so does everybody else. In my OPINION that is not illegal.

FTFY

 

[agent00f]

I've had him on and off ignore. Presently on. The only one for me. I recommend that others do the same. There is no other solution for someone like him.

Not hard to figure out why these sorts never had the conservative trolls on ignore, but someone comes along to observe the simple truth about them too and OMG the indignant butthurt.

"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.", Looked like a denouncement to me. Was that not strong enough. To tell you the truth I thought your remarks about him were rather flattering. He is what is wrong with the authoritarian left. The problem with where you are coming from in my opinion, is that you treat his contemptuousness with contempt. It's hard to know who is who.

You're somewhat right that many "leftists" also have authoritarian tendencies, particularly the ones you tend to favor like the one above. And it's also not hard to see why, because people who prioritize their self-interests over liberal principles will tend to mutually identify.

Yes, you are wrong.

Agentoaf is poison. He is toxic. He represents nearly everything that is wrong with the left. When the left shuns morons like him and begins to build a decent future with a decent candidate, change will happen. Until then they will be mired in morons who believe that character assassination is a valid response to anyone that doesn't subscribe to their beliefs.

Arguable easiest to see why democrats lose when they take advice from the likes of you.

 

[pcgeek11]

FTFY

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.”

 

[Sunburn74]

I think at this time it's more a question of how much collusion happened. I would say right now the amount of known collusion is infinitely small or near zero. We know they at least tried, but that is not going to be enough to lead anywhere in terms of prosecution. It's still sad though to think that the campaign of a sitting president at least tried to collude with a foreign government to win the seat.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I think at this time it's more a question of how much collusion happened. I would say right now the amount of known collusion is infinitely small or near zero. We know they at least tried, but that is not going to be enough to lead anywhere in terms of prosecution. It's still sad though to think that the campaign of a sitting president at least tried to collude with a foreign government to win the seat.

Yup. And hard headed republicans, as we can see, clearly don't give a fvck. Ready to defend the trumpsterfire

Buttery mails.

 

[agent00f]

I think at this time it's more a question of how much collusion happened. I would say right now the amount of known collusion is infinitely small or near zero. We know they at least tried, but that is not going to be enough to lead anywhere in terms of prosecution. It's still sad though to think that the campaign of a sitting president at least tried to collude with a foreign government to win the seat.

These things are always hard to prove unless someone talks, and I don't see any of the russians are dumb enough to talk so we'll see how loyal trump's people people are. Suffice to say this isn't a coincidence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/asia/trump-russia-sanctions.html