The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[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?

.

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Let me ask you this, if a news organization was given material damaging to a campaign and they coordinated with their opponents for its release. What law was broken?

Or let's flip it, if a campaign fabricated information damaging to an opponent and a coordinated with a news organization who knowingly published it. What law is broken?

You folks are claiming this is all about election integrity, let's see how much integrity you have.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.

Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.

Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?

I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.

.

The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...

What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.

Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.

Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?

I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.

.

The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...

What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

What does this tell you, someone released the contents of a "private" conversation. Of course it was unnamed sources, that's called leaks and it's against the law.

.

 

[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?

.

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?

.

 

[Care4all]

The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...

What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

 

[Care4all]

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?

.

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?

.

P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....

it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.

 

[OKTexas]

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

So what details did Nunes release that could identify the people involved or the actual content of the reports?

.

 

[OKTexas]

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

Would releasing who was involved in the conversation and what was discussed not be a partial release of the transcripts regardless how it's formatted? And it's just as serious of a crime as releasing the entire transcripts, it's divulging classified information. You've never had a security clearance have you?

.

 

[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?

.

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?

.

P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....

it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.

Russia already had the material that was released, coordinating to effect the election is no more criminal than many of the dirty tricks used by people in the US. One thing you can say about Wikileaks is what they released was true. The same can't be said about US candidates and the news organizations that publicized their lies. Like what ever happened to the bimbo avalanche against Trump? They seem to have vanished as quickly as they appeared.

.

 

[jc456]

Well Shiff is not the co-chair, he is the ranking member of the minority party. If the intel folks hadn't stonewalled him, he wouldn't have needed to go the WH complex to view the reports. There was no ruse and if you noticed after viewing the reports the Dems went very silent on the maobama regime not having the campaign under surveillance. And I've already said he could have handled it better.

Grasslley and Feinstein both said flat out that Trump was not a target according to Comey. Like I said, they're going to keep the propaganda value as high as they can for as long as they can, it all politics.

Yeah and we don't know who she shared the information with, remember the reports of the regime spreading all kinds of raw data around the intel agencies?

I just hope they find the leaker's, they need to be locked up.

.

The rumor was not true about spreading the intel around according to Susan Rice, they did not spread the intel around, she GATHERED all the separate info together on the Russian interference investigation aspects in to 1 report, upon the president's request for such...

What was actually leaked? The info on Flynn Lying to the vice President?

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

sure they were leaked. where you been bubba?

Really? Got a link to the leaked transcripts or leaked tapes?

how did the washington post know then?

 

[jc456]

It was the info in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador that was leaked, which is a felony.

.

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

for what?

 

[Care4all]

except no one actually leaked it, we got the shortest Reader's Digest version... at best.... it was a ''someone said'' that Fynn did discuss sanctions, no one released the classified recording, no one in the public knows what was on those recordings...or that the rumors were true....until Trump fired him for lying about discussing sanctions and telling Pence he didn't..

the classified tape of Flynn's discussions were never leaked, we've not heard them...

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

Would releasing who was involved in the conversation and what was discussed not be a partial release of the transcripts regardless how it's formatted? And it's just as serious of a crime as releasing the entire transcripts, it's divulging classified information. You've never had a security clearance have you?

.

I know they are different and different laws apply when discussing a civil servant and someone in the Military....Military having much stronger laws and harsher sentences than for civilians, for similar wrongs....

 

[Care4all]

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?

.

P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....

it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.

Russia already had the material that was released, coordinating to effect the election is no more criminal than many of the dirty tricks used by people in the US. One thing you can say about Wikileaks is what they released was true. The same can't be said about US candidates and the news organizations that publicized their lies. Like what ever happened to the bimbo avalanche against Trump? They seem to have vanished as quickly as they appeared.

.

No, testimony came out that said that..... you DO NOT KNOW THAT about wikileaks, and that most of what was released could have been true, but there were insertions in to the leaked emails that were not true.

AND the articles that were highlighted by wikileaks did not include all emails regarding the topics they highlighted and had Russian initiated stories spread to the right wing media within hours or minutes of their releases by wiki leaks....

Like they highlighted the memo where Hillary asked about Parkinson disease, and the stories regurgitated in the right wing and social media was that Hillary HAD Parkinson's disease and was sick and was dying etc etc etc....

They did not included the emails of why she was asking about Parkinson's in the first place...so they could regurgitate their initial fake story....

they inserted an email that claimed Cain was picked as VP a year before he was picked, which was fake....

 

[OKTexas]

No, just the transcripts or partial transcripts, still a felony.

NO, the transcripts were NOT released to the public either...not even partial transcripts....it was just someone saying they exist.... which is still a crime, but probably not a felony imo.

Well you would be wrong, revealing even partial contents of a classified report is a crime. Leaking the existence of the report and it included information gleaned from a phone call, tells the target of the report they were under surveillance and what methods of surveillance were being used. That too is a crime.

.

so Nunes is going to be charged? Isn't that what he is under an Ethics Investigation for...?

I'm fine with it being a felony for both!

so, do you ADMIT the transcripts were never released, not even partially released....?

btw, would releasing the actual transcripts been a more serious crime than simply stating the transcripts exist?

Would releasing who was involved in the conversation and what was discussed not be a partial release of the transcripts regardless how it's formatted? And it's just as serious of a crime as releasing the entire transcripts, it's divulging classified information. You've never had a security clearance have you?

.

I know they are different and different laws apply when discussing a civil servant and someone in the Military....Military having much stronger laws and harsher sentences than for civilians, for similar wrongs....

Title 18 applies to everyone.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Since the scenario you described is a 100% fabrication, what's the point?

Isn't that scenario what you folks are calling treason?

.

P.S. I'm not calling it Treason....none of this reaches the level of Treason itself, imo....

it's more traitorous than treasonous imho, IF speculations are true.

Russia already had the material that was released, coordinating to effect the election is no more criminal than many of the dirty tricks used by people in the US. One thing you can say about Wikileaks is what they released was true. The same can't be said about US candidates and the news organizations that publicized their lies. Like what ever happened to the bimbo avalanche against Trump? They seem to have vanished as quickly as they appeared.

.

No, testimony came out that said that..... you DO NOT KNOW THAT about wikileaks, and that most of what was released could have been true, but there were insertions in to the leaked emails that were not true.

AND the articles that were highlighted by wikileaks did not include all emails regarding the topics they highlighted and had Russian initiated stories spread to the right wing media within hours or minutes of their releases by wiki leaks....

Like they highlighted the memo where Hillary asked about Parkinson disease, and the stories regurgitated in the right wing and social media was that Hillary HAD Parkinson's disease and was sick and was dying etc etc etc....

They did not included the emails of why she was asking about Parkinson's in the first place...so they could regurgitate their initial fake story....

they inserted an email that claimed Cain was picked as VP a year before he was picked, which was fake....

I can honesty say the only place I heard those stories reported was on this board. But I didn't really pay much attention to them because my mind was made up not to vote for her regardless. I didn't want another far left justice on the court. BTW do you have a link to those insertions, I haven't heard about that?

.

 

[Slade3200]

So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?

We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.

dude, just post up the original evidence that started all of this fake shit.

You don't remember what started it? Here is a reminder... our intel agencies published a report showing that Russians interfered in our elections (see below). obama imposed sanctions. Flynn called the Russians and talked about those sanctions then lied about it, the VP and other Trump officials then lied to the American people about it. Then it was revealed that a handful of other Trump surrogates, including his son in law, spoke to the Russians after making statements that nobody had spoken to the Russians. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, it came out Flynn took money from the Russians for speaking and didn't disclose it... I could keep going but I think there is enough shadiness in the story to justify an investigation

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Useless drivel and a useless report. son that has absolutely nothing in it that proves any fking thing except someone's butt hurt crying of losing an election.


what does this mean?

"We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment ; NSA has moderate confidence"
.
I have no idea what that means.

It's ok if you don't understand what it means, maybe you should let those that do understand handle business and you can work on watercolors or something like that

 

[Slade3200]

So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?

We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents

From the October Surprise to the Russian Hack of the Election, degradation was the correct call.

You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing

I can and I do.

they are privy to the classified information and you are not.

Pssst...Russians posted fake stories on Facebook to beat Hillary....shhhh.....classified.

So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right? So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously? I could make a list of other similar people in the Trump admin who feel the same way, but let's start simple. Please explain

So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right?
why certainly. it is nothing but a joke. there is nothing of any evidence any fking place on earth. go ahead, prove me wrong.

You keep dodging. I can't prove you wrong because I havent seen the intel. Those that have seen the intel, even those who are in the Trump administration have made public statements about the accuracy and seriousness of the report. So try again to answer a simple question. Why would they contradict your claims that this is a joke?

 

[Slade3200]

So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?

We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents

From the October Surprise to the Russian Hack of the Election, degradation was the correct call.

You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing

I can and I do.

they are privy to the classified information and you are not.

Pssst...Russians posted fake stories on Facebook to beat Hillary....shhhh.....classified.

So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right? So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously? I could make a list of other similar people in the Trump admin who feel the same way, but let's start simple. Please explain

So you claim it is a joke and everybody who is taking the Russian interference seriously is lying and being partisan, is that right?

No. Some of the partisan idiots who take it seriously aren't lying.

So explain why Tillerson, Trumps outsider friend who he appointed as SOS, is taking it very seriously?

Laughing at idiots tends to trigger them.

Why don't you explain your theory of the election?

Did the Russians "hack the election"?
Did the Russians "spread fake news"?

Did any of their actions impact the election?
Which ones? How?

How about you answer my question first and then I'll answer yours. You keep dodging my question about why a guy like Tillerson would acknowledge the seriousness of the Russian interference.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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?

.

How is it that you don't know the answer yourself?

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

.

Because I haven't found a law that would apply, I thought someone else might be able to. So far, that's not the case.

Horseshit, you lying bastard! I presented 18 U.S. Code § 953 as the statute that would cover your hypothetical scenario showing that the Trump actor would be violating the statute, but you made excuses that it didn't apply because of the following "reasons", which were nothing but obfuscations, dodges and dissembling's used to hold together your allusions of some sort of superior intellect within your mind...what a piece of lying shit you are, Tex :

1. "The DNC and the bitches campaign are private entities and not the US." Your post #383!
2. "You might want to read the OP again the ***** was clearly mentioned." Your Post #400!
3. "18 U.S. Code § 953, only applies to the US Government or its agencies, it's right there in the statute." Your post #533!
4. "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." Your post #597!
5. "Really, does my scenario specify that the Trump associate was told what the information was or how it was obtained?" Your Post #640!
6. "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. Your post #662!

Those were your responses to my posts laying out how each and every one to this contrived scenario;

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.

Of your six(6) replies quoted above, in #1 & 2 above, you used the red herring of Clinton, who had nothing to do with the collusion, the UNLAWFUL ACTION, between the Trump associate and the Russian representative to change the focus. In #3 above, you tried something different by employing an outright lie regarding the very text of the statute...not too damn bright!

In #4 above, you use a ploy of ignorance BEFORE THE FACT in the case of the Trump associate to dismiss the relevance of the statute. Well, Tex, in your scenario the statute became relevant AFTER THE FACT when the Trump operative became aware of the information and THEN ACTED AND COLLUDED with the Russian.

In your #5 above, you make a supercilious pleading that is irrelevant considering his act of collusion with the Russian by arranging for the information be used as a means to impact an election in the United States. In your #6 above, having exhausted all your blanks in your pistol, you resort to another LIE claiming you've, "...addressed every thing you've brought up..." and that I, "...refuse to accept what I've [you, sic] said...." If that were true, how did you address all of the points addressed in those somewhat lengthy posts of mine with just those few lines above you lying piece of shit?

You're a liar, Tex and one really dishonest lump of prevaricating fecal matter. And the really sad thing is you're too bloody old to change. Keep boosting the Orange One...you two have a lot in common!

 

[bripat9643]

It's a joke and a hoax.

So Tillerson is lying along with everybody else in Washington. Your saying it is the biggest coordinated conspiracy in our nations history? That's really what you think is going on?

We've investigated jokes and hoaxes before.
Remember GHW Bush flying in an SR-71 to get Iran to keep the hostages until Jan 20, 1981?

Partisans will likely always make a fuss to degrade their opponents, but that's not what we are talking about here. The thing you are calling a joke is being taken very seriously by just about everybody on your side of the politics. Intel agencies, trump appointees like Tillerson, and congressional republicans. You can't dismiss this as partisan smearing and I have yet to hear a logical answer from you to justify your argument. The difference between you and all these officials that are actually acknowledging the seriousness of the Russia situation is that they are privy to the classified information and you are not. Yet you think you know it all.

dude, just post up the original evidence that started all of this fake shit.

You don't remember what started it? Here is a reminder... our intel agencies published a report showing that Russians interfered in our elections (see below). obama imposed sanctions. Flynn called the Russians and talked about those sanctions then lied about it, the VP and other Trump officials then lied to the American people about it. Then it was revealed that a handful of other Trump surrogates, including his son in law, spoke to the Russians after making statements that nobody had spoken to the Russians. Sessions recused himself from the investigation, it came out Flynn took money from the Russians for speaking and didn't disclose it... I could keep going but I think there is enough shadiness in the story to justify an investigation

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Wrong. The thing that started it is Hillary losing. Any other claims are propaganda.