Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 323839404142
Results 821 to 840 of 840

Thread: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

  1. #821
    Humble & proud of it!
    pseudo-intellectual elitist
    Aennyil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,702

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Ackar View Post
    So how long until Jared is placed as head of the Ethics office...

    OY VEY

  2. #822
    Banjo Duellist, 8th Dan
    Silverblade-T-E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    18,915
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    ...and still people support these fucks.

    yeah, "oy vey" indeed! More like " oy vey 10^100 "

    the mere fact this Vermin in the Whitehouse seriously considered giving himself a Presidential pardon should not just raise alarm bells, but actual "hordes of people with pitchforks and torches" to drag the rat out of his nest. America does have a sane, legal moderate means to do so but none such as we seem can or will work.

    Couldn't make this shit up If you tried
    but, if Americans do want America to be "great" again, then they, not the corrupt useless politicians and hideously warped system, need to get off their arses and do it in PERSON. And clean up the system, completely, total "flush and rinse"

  3. #823
    Chair warmer, Sector 7G
    Alikat Astrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Collusion to my best knowledge is only a crime in anti-trust law. In order for Trump Jr's meeting to be a crime there would need to be a conspiracy (not collusion) to commit an underlying crime.
    The crime committed was a violation of campaign finance laws, if your campaign coordinates with a foreign power (the term "collusion" is linguistically correct to describe this act), and later on receives substantial support from that same foreign power, then you just might be a redn--- er, be guilty of violating campaign finance laws, and possibly technically treason.

  4. #824
    Chair warmer, Sector 7G
    Alikat Astrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarbonius View Post
    Experts may indeed disagree, but nothing in either your link or your video addressed USC 510, which is a very specific statute that applies only to members of an election campaign. In the video, he makes a comment about not seeing a hard legal case, but he doesn't mention campaign law at all, and even if he was thinking about it that's hardly the same as saying that USC 510 isn't meant to apply to oppo research, as you contended.
    More specifically, so people can look at the text of the law itself, that would be 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510.

  5. #825
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Alikat Astrae View Post
    More specifically, so people can look at the text of the law itself, that would be 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510.
    Yes.

    Or they could look up a few posts where I quoted the law, in its entirety, for reference. Whichever is more convenient.

    EDIT - Here's a link to the post (statute text at the end in the spoiler tag):

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarbonius View Post
    Here are the relevant sections of the statute (USC 510)
    Last edited by Zarbonius; July 24th, 2017 at 04:34 PM.

  6. #826
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Alikat Astrae View Post
    The crime committed was a violation of campaign finance laws, if your campaign coordinates with a foreign power (the term "collusion" is linguistically correct to describe this act), and later on receives substantial support from that same foreign power, then you just might be a redn--- er, be guilty of violating campaign finance laws, and possibly technically treason.
    There have been a few references to treason, but most of the in-depth reporting I've seen says "no" to treason. It's too narrowly defined as working for the interests of a country with which the US is in a formal state of war.

    Campaign finance violations seem to be the most serious charges possible here (plus all the resulting political fallout).

  7. #827
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Point is, nonetheless, that USC 510 specifies accepting things of value (not the exact words but ...)

    That leaves the intent of the statute to the courts (ultimately the USSC) to decide if info is in fact something of value per the statute.
    Yes. That is indeed the entire point of this argument. I believe your position then is, (or at least your argument to the court would be) that oppo research has no value to a campaign? Also, "thing of value" actually is the exact wording. I posted the full text earlier in the thread - did you see it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    To the second point, the statute definitely would include Chalupa and anyone else she gave the info to (if you accept that it was criminal). So yes, double standard. The difference being the DNC and Hilary et al were trying to be slick (perhaps) by keeping this at arms length. Prove DNC and/or Hilary et al accepted and acted on the info and 'indirect' in the statute kicks in.
    Chalupa was not part of the campaign. Furthermore, she did not acquire any dirt, nor give any nonexistent dirt to anyone, including Clinton. The "dirt" was publicized by Ukrainian investigators as a result of a Ukrainian investigation into corruption in the Ukraine. How is Chalupa prosecutable here?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    So yes, partisan to not go after at least Chalupa. Failing to do so bumps up against inequality of enforcement which could ultimately be used to derail any effort to go after Jr down the road.
    What evidence would you use against her?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    As an added point, criminalizing information passing bumps up against freedom of speech.
    I didn't realize that freedom of speech laws applied to foreign nationals - I always thought it was a "rights of American citizens" thing. Guess I learned something today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    If a foreign govt. knew a candidate was going to SE Asia to molest children, do we want to criminalize divulging that?
    I thought you were taking this seriously. If you want to make ludicrous examples (and that is ludicrous), I'll just stop responding.
    Last edited by Zarbonius; July 24th, 2017 at 05:11 PM.

  8. #828
    Elder Arcanist
    Ackar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    10,551

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    So all Trump has to do is wait until the senate goes on vacation, then he can make a recess appointment of whoever he wants to replace Sessions.

    Rachel Maddow: If Trump Ousts Sessions During Senate Recess, New AG Might Try to Sack Mueller

  9. #829
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    I do love how Trump is treating Sessions badly in the hopes that Sessions will just resign.

    It brings back a lot of memories of high school, where stupid teenagers treated their girlfriends like crap because they didn't want to have to go through the conflict of breaking up with them.

    Jeff, if you're reading this, you just stay the course. Start talking about how you and Trump are going to be together forever, and about what your plans for the DoJ are, not just for 2018, but for 2019 as well. Make it a reeeeally awkward situation for Trump, and the people will love you for it.

  10. #830
    Humble & proud of it!
    pseudo-intellectual elitist
    Aennyil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,702

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Alikat Astrae View Post
    More specifically, so people can look at the text of the law itself, that would be 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510.
    USC 510 on google pulls up the statute just fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alikat Astrae View Post
    The alleged crime committed (in some people's opinion) was a violation of campaign finance laws, if your campaign coordinates with a foreign power (the term "collusion" is linguistically correct to describe this act), and later on receives substantial support from that same foreign power, then you just might be a redn--- er, be guilty of violating campaign finance laws, and possibly technically treason.
    Fixed that for you (bolded part.) Legal experts disagree whether USC 510 was even violated. Nor has anyone even been indicted let alone convicted. As for the use of collusion, conversationally it may be acceptable. The more correct term would be conspiracy. But hey if you, and others want to justify being sloppy when discussing legal issues? Knock yourselves out ...

    Oh and since you quoted the bit about my links not addressing USC 510 I want to reiterate that although it was not explicit I know from context (e.g. having heard Dershowitz speak on this) that's what was meant AND I cited other links that specifically mention 510. As for treason? A laughable speculation to most reasonable people. In present circumstances though I understand the fevered imaginations that produce such. Republicans are still tossing similar accusations toward Hillary and company. It was even more laughable when people were accusing Obama of treason, but it got tossed around too.

  11. #831
    Humble & proud of it!
    pseudo-intellectual elitist
    Aennyil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,702

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarbonius View Post
    Yes. That is indeed the entire point of this argument. I believe your position then is, (or at least your argument to the court would be) that oppo research has no value to a campaign? Also, "thing of value" actually is the exact wording. I posted the full text earlier in the thread - did you see it?
    Yes I saw it, in fact I looked up the statute and read through it.

    Chalupa was not part of the campaign. Furthermore, she did not acquire any dirt, nor give any nonexistent dirt to anyone, including Clinton. The "dirt" was publicized by Ukrainian investigators as a result of a Ukrainian investigation into corruption in the Ukraine. How is Chalupa prosecutable here?
    First of all, it doesn't matter if she was part of the campaign. Show me where in the statute it limits legal liability in the way you describe. My reading of the statute makes no such distinction. You're making a distinction that is immaterial even if it were true. Second, if she's off the hook because she didn't obtain any dirt, so is Junior. Finally, as I'll show in response to your next question, she is on record saying she did acquire and pass dirt to the DNC and Hilary's campaign.

    What evidence would you use against her?
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ackfire-233446
    Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
    A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort’s role in Yanukovych’s rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych’s political party.
    In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.
    The article goes on in some detail about Chalupa's work and who hired her to gather dirt.


    I didn't realize that freedom of speech laws applied to foreign nationals - I always thought it was a "rights of American citizens" thing. Guess I learned something today.
    Actually they do, and no it's not. No evidently you didn't.

    I thought you were taking this seriously. If you want to make ludicrous examples (and that is ludicrous), I'll just stop responding.
    Here a number of things become clear. Obviously from your assertions you did not bother to read what I linked in reference to Chalupa.

    Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.
    (my bold and underlining of the quote)

    author of this article?
    [Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
    So, do yourself a favor and get off your high horse. I'm too old for your condescending bull shit Zarbonius. What I was expressing was taken from authorities on the subject. Something you would have known if you'd showed me the respect of actually reading what I took the time and trouble to dig up for you only to be insulted. Oh and the example I gave? It's from an actual instance but is from personal knowledge so I cannot offer you a link.

    In point of fact Manafort had to resign from Trump's campaign based on allegations he broke the law directly thanks to Chalupa's work with Ukrainian's including diplomatic officers. I'd prefer to continue our discussion. I also think you owe me an apology but based on past experience here ...

  12. #832
    Entropy happens
    Zarbonius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,172

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Well, I'm just going to spoiler all of this, since it's mostly just Aennyil and I going back and forth, and is probably just a distraction for everyone else. Feel free to read it if you're interested, though.

    Spoiler for stuff!:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    First of all, it doesn't matter if she was part of the campaign. Show me where in the statute it limits legal liability in the way you describe. My reading of the statute makes no such distinction. You're making a distinction that is immaterial even if it were true.
    So, it doesn't matter if I show you the distinction, because you are going to discount it anyway. Not...quite sure how to respond to that... Here's the relevant quote, though:
    (b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections.*A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
    Your reading of the statute means that Joseph Ruskie can't give any information to Joe Q. American (who doesn't even follow politics) about Candidate Bob America, because there is an election going on and therefore said statement is "in connection" with the election in question (all of the free speech implications are also based on this reading). Which, you know, is a pretty loose interpretation. My reading of that is a bit of a narrower definition of "in connection", as in - it's probably someone who is actually connected to the election. And since we're talking about campaign finance laws, it's probably someone who's actually part of the campaign, since the whole point of the law is to prevent foreigners from giving things of value (usually, but not always money) to a campaign.

    It would be odd if the campaign finance laws also applied to foreigners giving money or information to individuals with no connection to any political entities whatsoever, but if that is your assertion, so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Second, if she's off the hook because she didn't obtain any dirt, so is Junior.
    Well, this is the disconnect here. If your assertion is in fact true - that anything of any value that is given by any foreigner to any American when any election is going on falls under this statute, then you've got me here (again, that's a looser interpretation of the statute than I would support). But my assertion is that it is not the lack of dirt that gets Chalupa off the hook - it's the fact that she wasn't part of the campaign. So any soliciting of such information on her part is irrelevant, because as a private citizen, campaign finance laws do not apply to her. In addition, she had been doing pro bono research on Manafort's relation to Ukrainian President Yanukovych since 2014, and gave a lot of her information to the DNC in January 2016, "months before Manafort had taken any role in Trump’s campaign".

    In any case, the lack of dirt doesn't get HER off the hook - it gets Hilary and the DNC off the hook. First, they didn't hire her to do it (no solicitation) - she did this of her own initiative. Second, if she had nothing of value (ie documents proving the "dirt" on Manafort), then she couldn't possibly have given them anything of value. No solicitation + no giving of any "thing of value" = no violation of USC 510. You could argue that she did have such dirt, but there has been no evidence of that in any article I am aware of. You could also argue that what information she did provide had value, but then you would have to show some justification for your assertion that it was information that had "value". The actions (or lack thereof) of the DNC and the campaign in response to her information gathering however, do not support that assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Finally, as I'll show in response to your next question, she is on record saying she did acquire and pass dirt to the DNC and Hilary's campaign.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ackfire-233446

    The article goes on in some detail about Chalupa's work and who hired her to gather dirt.
    Except it doesn't. It describes her work in detail, and at exactly no point does it say that anyone hired her to gather dirt. Quite the opposite, actually - she was hired to work on ethnic outreach, and started looking into Manafort on her own initiative. You keep posting links that you claim say one thing, but they do not actually say what you claim. And while it's nice that you (claim to) know which statute people are talking about in a video or a link, *why should I believe you*? And i mean that in a serious, non-condescending way.

    If your evidence boils down to me just taking your word for it, why even bother posting the link? I mean, the Dershowitz/Boston Globe article you linked wasn't even about oppo research, nor whether USC 510 applies to it - it was about Dershowitz defending Trump SENIOR on charges of collusion, not Trump JUNIOR. If you can't even get your links right, why should I give you the benefit of the doubt when you say "just trust me"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Here a number of things become clear. Obviously from your assertions you did not bother to read what I linked in reference to Chalupa.
    I read the whole article. It's very interesting. It also does not say what you claim it does. There's a recurring theme here, if you'll notice.

    She skirted a fine line, granted. But she didn't give (or at least there is no evidence that she did) any "incriminating" information (i.e. some "thing of value") about Manafort to the campaign.

    By late July, her consulting work was complete and she was working full time on her research as a private citizen, and was working with journalists on the story, not politicians. Either she didn't give anything to the campaign, didn't have anything concrete to give, or the campaign was *very* disciplined about not using it. They only made noises about it after the Ukrainians made the ledger information public, and the New York Times published an article about it.


    f a foreign govt. knew a candidate was going to SE Asia to molest children, do we want to criminalize divulging that?
    Look. This is a loony example. I did see the original example , and it is much more reasonably interpreted as referring to past criminal behaviour, not imminent future crimes. But regardless of who posted it, it is still based on the very loose interpretation of when campaign finance laws apply, and to whom (see top paragraph of this post).

    Anyway, still loony. Because if a foreign government knew a candidate was going to SE Asia to molest children, it would (maybe, just maybe) make sense to alert the authorities in whatever country he was going to in SE Asia that he was about to molest children there. Or maybe a journalist or ten - maybe even one in whichever country he was traveling to. But hey, smart of the government official to conduct his child molesting during an election campaign - I mean, since nobody anywhere can talk about it, it's basically a freebie, right?

    Sure, it might be more fun to talk to his political opponent's campaign representatives, but maybe not the most effective way to accomplish things, right? So yeah. Loony example. And if it's a real example, that's hilariously poor judgement on the part of the foreign government. Like, just terrible. They have many, many avenues they can explore other without giving information to his political opponents, nor to anyone at all in his home country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    So, do yourself a favor and get off your high horse. I'm too old for your condescending bull shit Zarbonius. What I was expressing was taken from authorities on the subject. Something you would have known if you'd showed me the respect of actually reading what I took the time and trouble to dig up for you only to be insulted. Oh and the example I gave? It's from an actual instance but is from personal knowledge so I cannot offer you a link.

    In point of fact Manafort had to resign from Trump's campaign based on allegations he broke the law directly thanks to Chalupa's work with Ukrainian's including diplomatic officers. I'd prefer to continue our discussion. I also think you owe me an apology but based on past experience here ...
    Yeah, that's fair. I was a bit condescending. But your supporting evidence has been somewhat suspect - either the link is talking about the President (when we were talking about Trump Jr.), the video does not mention the statute in question ("oh, trust me, that's what it's really about" isn't the strongest of supporting evidence), or the characterization of an article is questionable "The article goes on in some detail about Chalupa's work and who hired her to gather dirt.". Throw in the "OMG, campaign finance laws are the only thing stopping us from saving Asian children from being molested" example, and I started to question whether you might just be trolling me here. Subtly (and bravo if you have been).


    On the chance you have been serious this entire time, I do indeed apologize for my tone. But if you want me to take you seriously? Don't cite personal experience. If I know you personally, that's fine - I've got a few buddies in various Intelligence services, and when they phrase things a certain way, I just take their word for it. But I don't know you, and (no offense intended) I have zero reason to just take your word on anything.

    It's one of the drawbacks of online discussions I guess, but that's just the way it is.



    EDIT - If you are interested, take a look at this article: When Immigrants Speak: The Precarious Status of Non-Citizen Speech Under the First Amendment - it's a long read, but it addresses a few of the issues we have been discussing. Of particular interest might be that under current (SCOTUS-approved) law, non-citizens are even prohibited from spending a few dollars to photocopy flyers to distribute, supporting one candidate or another. So... hmm... actually, I'm not sure where that puts us in terms of whether non-citizens have first amendment protections. Sometimes, maybe?

    There is also some discussion of foreign contributions to an election, but it's mostly written looking at the restrictions on people who are in the United States, but are not citizens, and the author goes into some detail on the contradictions between some of the recent SC rulings.

    (and you thought I didn't learn anything today!)

    Last edited by Zarbonius; Yesterday at 05:38 AM. Reason: some fixes

  13. #833
    Mangina at large.
    Delores Mulva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    14,031

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    At what point will Trump make Sessions walk naked through the streets?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politi...ton/index.html

  14. #834

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    If Trump fired sessions and got a yes man in there who would fire Mueller, That would just scream guilty loud and clear to me.

    Trump clearly has something really really dirty to hide because otherwise he would just let this investigation go on and complete.

    Its funny, His constant tweeting keeps the media feeding frenzy around the Russia probe alive rather than it slowly fading into second or third story on the broadcast status.

    Keep in mind that really dirty could just be something ego damaging and not actual crime, Such as him not being as rich as he claims. Which given how Trump acts, He might consider that getting out as bad or worse than proven collusion with Russia.
    "When you name your baby Jeeves...you've pretty much set up his career for life. You don't see many Hit Men, for example, named Jeeves. "Pardon me sir, but I must wack you now."
    — Jerry Seinfeld

  15. #835
    Forum Sorcerer

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    872

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    I hope Sessions stands tall and makes Trump fire him. Don't give him the easy out! Make him pay the political price of firing you! (like there will ever be a price for Trump, who has yet to face any consequences truly in his life).

  16. #836
    Buckeye Wizard
    Nerkahia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,889

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by FilanFyretracker View Post
    If Trump fired sessions and got a yes man in there who would fire Mueller, That would just scream guilty loud and clear to me.
    Me as well. But not to Trump's base, who live in a bubble of alternative facts and call anything they disagree with "Fake News." The question is, what would it scream to GOP congressmen? -Which basically boils down to the local politics of their constituents.

    Quote Originally Posted by FilanFyretracker View Post
    Its funny, His constant tweeting keeps the media feeding frenzy around the Russia probe alive rather than it slowly fading into second or third story on the broadcast status.
    Agreed lol. He's his own worst enemy!
    Nerkahia
    Retired 85 Wizard of Ascentia, The Nameless

    "Maybe if the Republicanoids weren't snorting coke off oil execs dicks, we could have had less dependancy on oil by now!!" - Silverblade-T-E

  17. #837
    Rainbow Carrot Loves You
    Yeah!
    Wool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,090

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    His base isn't even paying attention. They just roll their eyes every time any of this comes up. The assumption is that you can't trust what the other side says ever.

  18. #838
    Chair warmer, Sector 7G
    Alikat Astrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Fixed that for you (bolded part.) Legal experts disagree whether USC 510 was even violated. Nor has anyone even been indicted let alone convicted. As for the use of collusion, conversationally it may be acceptable. The more correct term would be conspiracy. But hey if you, and others want to justify being sloppy when discussing legal issues? Knock yourselves out ....
    Oh my, you laid down with them dogs and have apparently woke up with fleas! What is "alleged" about Junior's own tweeted emails and their obvious eager conspiring to collude with foreign agents in a Presidential campaign? Let's put this to a sniff test: Suppose HILLARY CLINTON and some of her top campaign people had been the ones who had "allegedly" done all of this stuff? Would you and your Breitbart clone army have been scouring the weeds looking for "legal experts" to downplay that shit? You partisan shetbeg betch!

  19. #839
    Chair warmer, Sector 7G
    Alikat Astrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Aennyil View Post
    Yes I saw it, in fact I looked up the statute and read through it.


    First of all, it doesn't matter if she was part of the campaign. Show me where in the statute it limits legal liability in the way you describe. My reading of the statute makes no such distinction. You're making a distinction that is immaterial even if it were true. Second, if she's off the hook because she didn't obtain any dirt, so is Junior. Finally, as I'll show in response to your next question, she is on record saying she did acquire and pass dirt to the DNC and Hilary's campaign.



    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ackfire-233446

    The article goes on in some detail about Chalupa's work and who hired her to gather dirt.



    Actually they do, and no it's not. No evidently you didn't.


    Here a number of things become clear. Obviously from your assertions you did not bother to read what I linked in reference to Chalupa.



    (my bold and underlining of the quote)

    author of this article?

    So, do yourself a favor and get off your high horse. I'm too old for your condescending bull shit Zarbonius. What I was expressing was taken from authorities on the subject. Something you would have known if you'd showed me the respect of actually reading what I took the time and trouble to dig up for you only to be insulted. Oh and the example I gave? It's from an actual instance but is from personal knowledge so I cannot offer you a link.

    In point of fact Manafort had to resign from Trump's campaign based on allegations he broke the law directly thanks to Chalupa's work with Ukrainian's including diplomatic officers. I'd prefer to continue our discussion. I also think you owe me an apology but based on past experience here ...
    Something to keep in mind in this never-ending quest to prove that "they done it too!": One of these two people is currently unemployed and probably writing her memoirs between long solo hikes, and the other one is currently occupying the White House and making Executive policy and has the power to sign bills into law. Nobody cares about Hillary anymore except for Drumpf and his knee-jerk-reactionary constituency, because he (and you apparently) is too immature to know that "Suzy did it too!" is not an excuse for being naughty.

  20. #840
    Chair warmer, Sector 7G
    Alikat Astrae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Trump national security advisor Michael Flynn resigns over contacts with Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Gidizlo View Post
    I hope Sessions stands tall...
    That will require special shoes....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •