Open season on our elections

[Dragonlady]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

The law firm paid a British agent who then paid Russian espionage agents. Everyone involved knew what was going down. Only the terminally gullible believe otherwise. The FBI knew where the information was ultimately coming from.

 

[S.J.]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

It's really hard to take you seriously. You leftists keep portraying Hillary as being some innocent ******* victim who is just too stupid to deliberately do anything illegal. That shit doesn't fly, not after two decades of corruption. And HTF would you know what was true and what wasn't true in the fake dossier she paid for (through channels)? I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue what's even IN it except for the peeing on the bed part.

 

[S.J.]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

The law firm paid a British agent who then paid Russian espionage agent. Everyone involved knew what was going do. Only the terminally gullible believe otherwise. The FBI knew where the information was ultimately coming from.

You're trying to explain the obvious to an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

It's really hard to take you seriously. You leftists keep portraying Hillary as being some innocent ******* victim who is just too stupid to deliberately do anything illegal. That shit doesn't fly, not after two decades of corruption. And HTF would you know what was true and what wasn't true in the fake dossier she paid for (through channels)? I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue what's even IN it except for the peeing on the bed part.

DragonLady just flat out lies in every post.

 

[toobfreak]

Trump admits he'd take info from foreign countries to help him win elections

Why not, the Left have been doing it for years. If my neighbor is robbing from me, what do I care who tells me about it, if they are from across the street, across town or from another state?

 

[Third Party]

The issue is the same- 2 sides that hate each other. Joe said this Trump said that-his was worse, no his was worse. Whoever gets in will be torn to pieces by the other party. They all deserve each other.

 

[cnm]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

 

[S.J.]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

Then you're admitting Hillary broke the law?

 

[cnm]

Then you're admitting Hillary broke the law?

No, I'm saying Trump has admitted he will.

 

[forkup]

Well let's play out the scenario to illustrate one of the reasons you shouldn't. You take the information from the talliban or Russia for that matter and you get elected. After you are in office, someone from the talliban, or Russia gets into contact and tells you. "Give me this consession, or I blow the lid on the help I gave you and your willingness to accept it". They call it being compromised and it's not a good thing.

You mean like Britain, Australia, Ukraine, and Italian officials have just done outing Obama and Hillary for doing this?

First. I would like a source to back up these claims. Secondly. Their is an insane difference, between hiring a law firm to do opposition research. Contracts that stipulate that the law firm do their do diligence on checking the sources. The difference being that the law firm NOT the incumbent is responsible for the information. And the incumbent can as such not be compromised. Thirdly you just tried to compare Australia with the Taliban and Russia..... you don't see a problem with that?

You left one out.

Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.

trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.

I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.

Say what?


It's just freedom of speech...


Dang you guys act like 5 year olds when Billy told the teacher you stole a candy bar,, you blamed Billy for telling on you.




.

Freedom of speech???? What it is, is the highest public official in the land signaling he is willing to trade national security for winning elections. The fact that you are trying to justify it as. Hey its just an expression of opinion is dishonest, not to mention cynical in the extreme.

 

[forkup]

First. I would like a source to back up these claims. Secondly. Their is an insane difference, between hiring a law firm to do opposition research. Contracts that stipulate that the law firm do their do diligence on checking the sources. The difference being that the law firm NOT the incumbent is responsible for the information. And the incumbent can as such not be compromised. Thirdly you just tried to compare Australia with the Taliban and Russia..... you don't see a problem with that?

You left one out.

Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.

trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.

I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.

Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... ******* hypocrites..

Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.
What I also said is that it's a logical fallacy. Like this one is. This one is the strawman argument. You misrepresent my position because you have no actual retort to my real one.

Who exposes them to black mail? Go ahead and tell the public I did massive amounts of cocaine, see if I care..



This reminds me of a book I just read..

She laid it all out



View attachment 265257

I'm guessing you would care if I can prove you did and threaten to expose the fact to your boss or the police. You would care as a politician to, if like in the example the taliban gave you information and you accepted it to get elected.

 

[Cellblock2429]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

/——/ Since when is it a crime to listen? Can you cite the law?

 

[K9Buck]

Trump admits he'd take info from foreign countries to help him win elections Now, did he take help, the dirt, from Russia ?? No morals No ethics The man is a walking slime bag Defends son for not calling fbi on russian meeting

Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments - CNNPolitics

You are a fool.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You left one out.

Contracting with a private company isn't working with the government of a foreign nation.

trump worked with the Russian government. He said he would do it again.

I left another one out actually. Even if those points wouldn't be all true. The argument is in itself a fallacy. More specifically an appeal to hypocrisy. The action is right because the other side doesn't act correct themselves. I for one believe that not having a president willing to compromise himself to a foreign nation transcends party lines. Sadly enough, Trump has changed all that.

Its OK if we do it but oh no... you better not.... ******* hypocrites..

Did I ever say it's okay? What I said. Specifically said, is that you don't accept information from foreign nations if they offer it to your campaign. If you do you, running for office. You expose yourself to blackmail. You will find only ONE example of an incumbent doing otherwise. Trump. No Obama didn't and no Clinton didn't. What at worst they did was hire firms who do opposition research. Those firms create isolation for the incumbents so they can NOT be blackmailed. It's both unethical but only one compromises you.
What I also said is that it's a logical fallacy. Like this one is. This one is the strawman argument. You misrepresent my position because you have no actual retort to my real one.

Who exposes them to black mail? Go ahead and tell the public I did massive amounts of cocaine, see if I care..



This reminds me of a book I just read..

She laid it all out



View attachment 265257

I'm guessing you would care if I can prove you did and threaten to expose the fact to your boss or the police. You would care as a politician to, if like in the example the taliban gave you information and you accepted it to get elected.

So your telling us democrats have something illegal to hide, what else is new?

And the funny thing is when the left finds out something they go on a smear campaign and overblow the truth


Also again if someone is a criminal running for public office what difference does it make who spills the beans? Are you really telling us Hoover didn't black ball anyone?

.

 

[Corvet]

So funny that every leftard here can't grasp the simple concept that information is not a monetary contribution. Thus it is not illegal to accept it. I believe their term in 2016 was "opposition research". Every politician in Washington or anywhere else would take any information they could get on their opponent. But the meltdowns here are becoming epic.

BULL SHIT If that was Hillary in the WH saying she'd accept help from foreign countries republican AH's would string her up

The dumb ***** did more than accept such “intel”... she paid a foreign entity to manufacture some. **** off off you hypocritical ****.

Everything in the Dossier has been verified except the pee tape. Nothing was made up.

you have a link to that?
last i recall the FBI verified nothing

 

[Corvet]

The US takes intel from foreign nations daily. It either pans out. Or it doesn’t. Unfortunately for Hillary... She didn’t pan out...

The Russians didn't have any dirt on Trump. That's why Hillary had to pay somebody to invent some.

Trump embraced collusion after denying collusion The lowest of the low A republican But I repeat myself

Hillary embraced collusion and engaged in it. What's your point?

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Did she meet with Russian's in a hotel and lie about what the meeting was about - several times?

Did she refuse to go before a House Committee out to get her, spent 8 hours with hostile questioning, and at the end found to have done no wrong?

Did she lie about releasing her taxes?

She paid Russian espionage agents to manufacture dirt on Trump, you ******* moron.

and that was just the begining.....then Ohr fed it to hubby and put it into the FBI bloodstream and hence the phony russian investigations began

 

[Corvet]

Where is the evidence that HRC "colluded"?

Seriously? She paid a ******* spy to invent a story about Trump. This has been documented, you moron.

You’re the ******* moron! She paid a law firm to obtain opposition research. She didn’t pay anyone other than the law firm.

As for the Dossier - everything in it was true and verified except the pee tape.

The law firm paid a British agent who then paid Russian espionage agents. Everyone involved knew what was going down. Only the terminally gullible believe otherwise. The FBI knew where the information was ultimately coming from.

she wouldnt know this because CNN and MSLSD dont report on it

the late bight comedians dont make newsie jokes about it

 

[bripat9643]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

It's not illegal. It's protected by the First Amendment. Only a Stalinist douche would claim you aren't allowed to listen to certain people talk.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What crime is it to listen?

To listen is to accept information given to a campaign by a foreign entity. Information is valuable, knowledge is power.

It's not illegal. It's protected by the First Amendment. Only a Stalinist douche would claim you aren't allowed to listen to certain people talk.

"Loose lips sink ships" This is your goal, isn't it?