The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[charwin95]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

1. Russia is a well known adversaries of America. Putin and his government are serious threat to American civilization before ISIS.
2. Any connection -------- ANY connections of a candidates especially president with the Russians to interfere into our democracy is NOT acceptable. Those are called traitors.
3. Any specific law broken ------ That would be espionage by the Russian and treason by Trump associates.
4. How you applied your HYPOTHETICAL doesn't match the reality.

Your turn.

I'm going to switch gears for a second and ask you a question I posed to another poster in this thread in case you didn't see it.

Which is more dangerous to our elections: Appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies like Harry Reid told from the senate floor about Romney's taxes? Reid admitted it was a lie and laughed about it, saying, it worked didn't it.

.

Why did you switch gears? Hacking by foreign government that is hostile to this country is not acceptable.
Reid and other politicians lying is a practice of all political figures.

 

[bripat9643]

What if a member of the Obama administration used her political power to ensure that Russia would get a good deal in the sale of uranium mining claims? To paraphrase a popular psychological cliche, "If a democrat falls in the forest and nobody hears it does it make a sound"? Think about it.

And what if the Russians made big "donations" to a foundation owned by that member of the Obama administration?

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

1. Russia is a well known adversaries of America. Putin and his government are serious threat to American civilization before ISIS.
2. Any connection -------- ANY connections of a candidates especially president with the Russians to interfere into our democracy is NOT acceptable. Those are called traitors.
3. Any specific law broken ------ That would be espionage by the Russian and treason by Trump associates.
4. How you applied your HYPOTHETICAL doesn't match the reality.

Your turn.

I'm going to switch gears for a second and ask you a question I posed to another poster in this thread in case you didn't see it.

Which is more dangerous to our elections: Appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies like Harry Reid told from the senate floor about Romney's taxes? Reid admitted it was a lie and laughed about it, saying, it worked didn't it.

.

Why did you switch gears? Hacking by foreign government that is hostile to this country is not acceptable.
Reid and other politicians lying is a practice of all political figures.

I thought Trump was the only political figure that lied, and that made him ineligible to be President.

 

[charwin95]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON. It doesn't matter who contacted who first. Any other campaign would have refused to talk with a Foreign adversary, much less accept information from them.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

"Is associated of happening?" Is English your second language?

Russia is not America's enemy. If cyber attacks are an act of war, then why hasn't any country been bombed for doing it?

As always, you're totally full of shit.

Russia is, was and always be an enemy of America. Unless you are a traitor.

 

[Care4all]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.....

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what the Russians systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

The Democrat party is not our government.

Undermining the integrity of an election does effect our government and would be considered a treasonous act

The word "undermining" is utterly meaningless.

Is publishing lies about the candidates "undermining" the election?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You are being willfully wrong and present no evidence or argumentation to support that preposterous and twisted logic! Let's parse the statute for you since you are ignoring the first clause of the first sentence of the statute. Here's the relevant passage in full for easy reference;

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

This part pertains to the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" who contacts a foreign government or agent of your HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION to get them to release information at a time that could negatively impact, "...measures of the United States." Those measures might have been such things as the outcome of a free and fair Presidential Election, perhaps! But who knows for sure since it was your HYPOTHETICAL STORY!

"ANY CITIZEN of the United States, wherever HE may be, who, without authority of the United States...." Notice that it pertains to ANY CITIZEN of the United States and NOT to the United States per se or its agencies! To put it succinctly, the CITIZEN would be the object of any violation of LAW. You are WRONG regarding your faulty assertion that the statute ONLY applies to the US Government or its agencies! That was pointed out to you already, but...!

The challenge you set out in the OP has been met and it has been shown that statutory prohibition does exist declaring the conduct of this HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" of your HYPOTHETICAL Scenario unlawful. It's past time to stop your quibbling and admit that 18 U.S. Code § 953 proves that conduct of the US Citizen projected in your OP's HYPOTHETICAL construct would be unlawful!

Allow me refresh your memory on the OP.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

If you note, the Trump associate didn't know about the information before the contact was made, they gained that knowledge during the contact.

And once again, your trying to shoehorn that statute to apply to something it clearly doesn't is on you not me.

There you go again trying to step OUTSIDE the borders of your own HYPOTHETICAL scenario!

It makes ABSOLUTELY no difference WHEN the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" learned of the information...none whatsoever! It was the ACTION of the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" after LEARNING of that information from the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to discuss and encourage the HYPOTHETICAL Russian representative to disclose that information at a specific time that would be violative of 18 U.S. Code § 953 within the confines of YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. Below is that HYPOTHETICAL "what if" from your OP for your review, given you appear to have completely <edit> forgotten <edit> what you wrote!

Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Again:
The challenge you set out in the OP has been met and it has been shown that statutory prohibition does exist declaring the conduct of this HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate" of your HYPOTHETICAL Scenario unlawful. It's past time to stop your quibbling and admit that 18 U.S. Code § 953 proves that conduct of the US Citizen projected in your OP's HYPOTHETICAL construct would be unlawful!

Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?.

Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?

No, just as it doesn't have the full text of Tolstoy's "War and Peace" in those 34 words. Again, you're quibbling to avoid admitting that the US citizen in your HYPOTHETICAL fantasy would have violated 18 U.S. Code § 953 by colluding with the foreign agent of your HYPOTHETICAL scenario. The specifics were not relayed, but that is immaterial given what was implied by yourself with your own bloody characterizations.

Your own reference to the Russian telling the HYPOTHETICAL "Trump Associate", "...we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that." That was the ACTION that caused the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant to cross the line of criminality in your HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

The "bad shit" you wrote about certainly implied something detrimental to Clinton's campaign, and not how amazing her hair was or her outstanding figure! And why would the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant NOT be interested with HYPOTHETICALLY damaging the Clinton campaign via a third party which would likely be harder to backtrack as the culprit? Is it likely that the HYPOTHETICAL Orange One's sycophant would want to enhance Clinton's campaign, really? I wasn't born yesterday and neither were you!

You're doing nothing other than trying to dodge and deflect to avoid the fact of accepting that the American hero in your two sentence "play" would have violated the law in the real world based solely on his ACTIONS. You've tried four (4) different ploys now with me alone to wiggle out from under the weight you placed upon yourself trying to entrap others to puff up your own damaged ego.

You should have shown some character and grace and accepted the inevitable. Now, you're just appearing desperate, Tex. Time to man up!

To this point I've addressed every thing you've brought up, you refuse to accept what I've said, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue go over the same topics again and again. Have a nice day.

To this point I've addressed every thing you've brought up, you refuse to accept what I've said,

That is absolutely FALSE! My last post to you displays the truth that you have not responded to a single point made. Instead you parade out yet another diversion from the topic. What you're doing again is dissembling by trying to pin your own conduct on me. I haven't refused to accept your responses. What I have done is REFUTE them, one by one with fact and logic, and you have provided absolutely no rebuttal whatsoever to my arguments because you could not! Instead, you have gone off in another direction with other avoidance rhetoric. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, Tex!

I'm not going to continue go over the same topics again and again.

You haven't done that at all. I'm the one that's been trying to keep you on point and you've been the one scurrying away. You want me to release you from your responsibility of an honest and honorable person regarding the trap you tried to lay in your OP! Ain't gonna happen, Tex! You wrote it and YOU OWN IT! Again, MAN UP!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In other words, you want to take the easy way out without loosing anymore of your hide. I think I said something in my last post about you manning up, Tex! Try it and you might gain some appreciation of the person looking back at you in your mirror!

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

Collusion with a foreign adversary to interfere into an American election is TREASON. It doesn't matter who contacted who first. Any other campaign would have refused to talk with a Foreign adversary, much less accept information from them.

Please provide the specific statute that includes that please.

.

Treason is associated of happening during a time of war time--but the United States does consider cyber attacks to be the 21st century Act of War. So if there was collusion with anyone within the Trump campaign and Russia it would be considered Treason.
Calls Grow For Trump Campaign To Be Prosecuted For Treason If They Conspired With Russia

"Is associated of happening?" Is English your second language?

Russia is not America's enemy. If cyber attacks are an act of war, then why hasn't any country been bombed for doing it?

As always, you're totally full of shit.

Russia is, was and always be an enemy of America. Unless you are a traitor.

Horseshit. All you snowflakes loved the Soviet Union before it collapsed.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

 

[Darkwind]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

The Democrat party is not our government.

Undermining the integrity of an election does effect our government and would be considered a treasonous act

The integrity of our election is intact. Publishing information about a candidate (written by that candidate or her minions) does not harm the integrity of our elections. Unless of course, you are willing to stipulate that the media also acts in a treasonous way.

 

[radical right]

How many times did she meet with Russian reps during her tenure as SOS or as a candidate either in the 2008 or 2016 campaigns? Do you know what might have been said in any of those, I don't with the exception of what was reported and no one knows if the reporting was a full disclosure or even accurate.

.

Under those situations Hillary would have a minimum of 4 people with her, and the person she's meeting with at least 2 people with them. Both the State Department and Russians would have witnesses if not transcripts of the conversation.

What sort fo "bad shit" would they have about a meeting with half a dozen witnesses?

 

[charwin95]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

I'm not sure it breaks any laws in the way you described.

However, what you're leaving out is whether or not the Russian representative broke the law to acquire the "really bad shit". If you're aware of US Laws being broken and do nothing about it and, in fact, seek to benefit from it...the electorate should be made aware that you have no respect for the law.

In this case, Roger Stone, a Trump Associate admits to interaction with Guccifer (the Russian hacker US intel concludes hacked Ms .Clinton's e-mails) and even tweeted that her campaign manager will "have his turn in the barrel" six weeks prior to the release of his hacked files. Why a man with the President's ear is chatting with a hacker is mind boggling in and of itself.... That the hacker is probably responsible for breaking the law and Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump did nothing about it...tells you all you need to know about how seriously they take our electoral process.

Nonsense. Let's be honest. Let's say someone burglarized a house. He finds evidence of kiddie porn. He is disgusted by what he sees. The burglar takes the evidence and leaves. He has committed a crime by breaking and entering. He has stolen property. Two crimes right there.

The next day the burglar mails the evidence to the police. He uses the address he robbed as the return address. The police receive the evidence and start on the way to getting the warrants.

They aren't colliding with the burglar. Or even this way. It is doubtful that the Trump Co folks met directly with Guccifier. If they met with anyone they met with a cut out. Someone who knows someone who knows someone else.

In Police Terminology a confidential informant.

Someone who hears things.

Now the confidential informant who offers up information that they did not participate in stealing is not committing a crime. Oh you could say withholding information from law enforcement. Pfui. That wouldn't fly. You could say conspiracy. Nuts.

Even if it was true that Trump himself asked for the information to be gotten and then released from a cut out who is not directly involved. What crime?

Are you going after the hackers? Why are they less moral in your book than the burglar who mails the kiddie porn to the police? Yes they committed a crime. But as a mediating factor they exposed a more serious crime in the process.

Your example from top to bottom is illegal. Cops will request a search warrants------- judge will ask proof of any illegal activity-------- someone mailed us these child pornography video ------ how did you obtained it ------- someone mailed it to us. Judge will deny the request 100%.
YOU cannot just rely on those kinds of tips.
Let say you pissed me off badly------- I will make a porno video of underage then mail it to law enforcement anonymously------ they raided your house just to messed you up------------- Then whole world will be so screwed up. Don't you think?

 

[bripat9643]

How many times did she meet with Russian reps during her tenure as SOS or as a candidate either in the 2008 or 2016 campaigns? Do you know what might have been said in any of those, I don't with the exception of what was reported and no one knows if the reporting was a full disclosure or even accurate.

.

Under those situations Hillary would have a minimum of 4 people with her, and the person she's meeting with at least 2 people with them. Both the State Department and Russians would have witnesses if not transcripts of the conversation.

What sort fo "bad shit" would they have about a meeting with half a dozen witnesses?

Wouldn't those be the people who were all given immunity by Comey?

 

[radical right]

What if a member of the Obama administration used her political power to ensure that Russia would get a good deal in the sale of uranium mining claims? .

Hillary was one of SIX, domestic agencies that had to approve the deal, along with two foreign agencies and the canadian gobvernment that had to also approve the deal. Hillary could only give 1/10 of the approvals needed to get the deal done. Any of 9 other parties could have killed the deal. And Hillary had no influence over them.

 

[OKTexas]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...

To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.

So what law was broken, quote the law.

.

That is incorrect. You are example is different from the reality is like mixing a spaghetti and barbed wires make it consumable.

Russian hacking into our system may it be democrats, republicans or private enterprises is a crime interfering into our democracy.
Any hacking ---------- ALL hacking are illegal however you defined and use it for some one advantage.

Please quote the statute. BTW would that include secretly recording closed campaign strategy meetings and releasing it, like they did to Mitt?

.

What is Mitt has anything to do with hacking by a foreign adversaries?

So you can't provide a statute, ok. And I only mentioned Mitt because it's just one more example of improperly obtained information that was released publicly that you folks don't seem to have a problem with.

.

 

[Care4all]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

Unmasking requests is not leaking and it was ALREADY investigated by the Republicans in the House Intelligence Committee and they found the unmasking was all legal and necessary and not unusual by Susan Rice.

LEAKING classified information to people not cleared to receive it is illegal, and should be investigated when it happens!

 

[OKTexas]

To this point I've addressed every thing you've brought up, you refuse to accept what I've said, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to continue go over the same topics again and again. Have a nice day.

.

How about finishing Constitution Article 1 section 6, where a congress person can be charged with treason for something he says from the well of the senate. But you would have to show how the clause (after the semi-colon) isn't a separate thought, connected to the main. insted of being

Main, 1st clause, more of 1st clause; 2nd clause.

Still doing some research on that one, I haven't forgotten.

.

 

[oreo]

Well, obviously the FBI, when they added the Trump campaign to their Russian investigation, did so, because of possible criminal or espionage activity, no? I said possible...something in their investigation lead them to add or include them...

AS I WAS TOLD BY ALL REPUBLICANS two years ago when the FBI opened their Clinton email server investigation, the FBI doesn't investigate unless there is a possible crime being committed...

ONLY the FBI Counter intelligence division and Comey, would know the laws that were POSSIBLY broken, since they are all on the hush, hush, and are not leaking.

We can guess...accessories to cyber theft, or accessories to the distribution and dissemination of stolen goods etc....

But more than likely, it's the possibility of something much deeper than those two things that brought the FBI in to pulling the Trump Campaign in to their investigation is my thought....may not be connected to the stolen email part of the investigation at all...they've testified in hearings the stolen emails was not even the tip of the iceberg on what they systematically did to interfere....

Plus, there are the Russian/Ukrainian money laundering connections to the campaign manager, Paul Manafort that may have nothing to do with the stolen emails and Flynn's troubling situation may not have anything to do with the stolen emails....but still be connected to the Russians or even possibly the Kremlin...

You're living in a fantasy world. The only crimes committed were unmasking the names of American citizens and leaking that information to the press. Those are genuine crimes that were irrefutably committed.

Also, the term "connected" is virtually meaningless. It has about the same significance as saying everyone is connected to Kevin Bacon by six degrees.

We will honor the people who out traitors to this country--and I don't really give a rat's ass who does it. They will be the Hero's not the villians.


Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia
utm_term=.dd85be1f3321

More Trump advisers disclose meeting with Russia's ambassador - CNNPolitics.com
Comey says FBI began investigation into Russia meddling in July



Trump aides were in constant touch with senior Russian officials during campaign - CNNPolitics.com

Flynn reportedly lied to FBI about sanctions talk with Russian envoy
Flynn was paid to lobby for Turkey while attending Trump intel briefings: report
Michael Flynn received more than $33,000 from Russian TV
Michael Flynn targeted by grand jury subpoenas, sources confirm

Jeff Sessions spoke twice with Russian envoy during presidential campaign: Department of Justice
Did AG Sessions violate his recusal by advising on the decision to fire Comey?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/james-comey-fbi-trump-white-out/index.html

 

[radical right]

The integrity of our election is intact. Publishing information about a candidate (written by that candidate or her minions) does not harm the integrity of our elections. Unless of course, you are willing to stipulate that the media also acts in a treasonous way.

So you agree it wouldn't effect the election if somebody got a copy of Trumps tax returns (between Trump and his lawyers) and released it to the pulbic. That would be perfectlyt O.K. with you? Right?

 

[OKTexas]

Really? What exactly did the conspire to do?

.

That is what the investigations are all about. You asked what laws may have been broken. Change your hypothetical scenario to include other meetings where the Russians may have mentioned some kind of cooperation with a trump administration with sanctions. If the trump administration or campaign official showed a willingness to cooperate and a later representative met with the Russians and got an offer or suggestion that illegally obtained emails would be leaked, that would be a conspiracy to obtain or have use of illegally obtained espionage products, hence, a criminal conspiracy. I am not trying to argue the merits of the case, rather, answering your original question about what law may have been violated.

Except many officials in the intel community, including Clapper, have repeatedly said there is no evidence of that.

.

That is incorrect. Clapper came out to clear that confusion.

James Clapper on collusion between Russia, Trump aides: There could be evidence

(CNN) Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told MSNBC'S Andrea Mitchell on Friday that there could be evidence of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign -- a statement that comes on the heels of an apparent public threat Trump made this morning to fired FBI Director James Comey, tweeting that Comey had better hope their conversations have not been taped.
There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

Well then maybe you'll believe one of the biggest Trump detractors in the country who's seen all the evidence to date.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that she has seen no evidence thus far showing collusion between associates of President Donald Trump and the Russian government during the presidential campaign.

“Do you have evidence that there was, in fact, collusion between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?” Blitzer asked Feinstein, noting that she and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee were recently briefed on the subject at the CIA headquarters.

“Not at this time,” Feinstein responded.

“Well, that’s a pretty precise answer,” Blitzer said.

Dianne Feinstein: ‘no evidence’ of collusion between Russia and Trump during 2016 campaign

.

Look at the dates between those 2 links.

My point was Clapper left the government on Jan 20, Feinstein has been in every briefing from Comey that Clapper would have not been privy to.