The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[radical right]

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. instead of being

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

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

.

 

[OKTexas]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned,
.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together
with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,
a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives
to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on
which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the
United States.

And your point would be? General elections happen on the same day also, doesn't make them a national election just because they are choosing representatives to the federal government. Electors are State representatives.

.

The constitution mentions the presidential election, which is a NATIONAL ELECTION. You claimed the Constitution said nothing about it.

Just because you call it a national election does't make it suddenly appear in the Constitution.

.

 

[radical right]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned,
.

The constitution mentions the presidential election, which is a NATIONAL ELECTION. You claimed the Constitution said nothing about it.

Just because you call it a national election does't make it suddenly appear in the Constitution.

.

It's section 2 of the constitution. It's always been there.

 

[OKTexas]

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. instead of being

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

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

.

I still haven't forgotten child. I'm having a bit of a hard time getting a hold of a friend who is an attorney and congressional staffer. They've had her bouncing around the district doing constituent days.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned,
.

The constitution mentions the presidential election, which is a NATIONAL ELECTION. You claimed the Constitution said nothing about it.

Just because you call it a national election does't make it suddenly appear in the Constitution.

.

It's section 2 of the constitution. It's always been there.

So where is the term "national election" used, except by you and other daydreamers.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned, yet you keep insisting on using the term.

You can't ******* read, asshole?

ONE "plan or course of action" under Constitutional law is to have free, unfettered elections to fill the various vacancies in the National government.

Further you ******* ignorant twit, Article 1 § 4;

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

What the Hell was the result of that Article and section, shit for brains? Do we have "National Election" established by the Constitution and codified in law? Hell yes we do!

Also your "assumption" that the Trump rep was in the least interested in advancing the Russian agenda and not that of Trump is laughable.

I have no ******* idea what you're driving at since you didn't quote what you claim you're referencing, fool! The action the Trump rep took in your hypothetical would have the effect of unsettling effects and impacts to the US National election process. AGAIN READ THE FOLLOWING YOU DIM BULB!

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

 

[OKTexas]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned, yet you keep insisting on using the term.

You can't ******* read, asshole?

ONE "plan or course of action" under Constitutional law is to have free, unfettered elections to fill the various vacancies in the National government.

Further you ******* ignorant twit, Article 1 § 4;

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

What the Hell was the result of that Article and section, shit for brains? Do we have "National Election" established by the Constitution and codified in law? Hell yes we do!

Also your "assumption" that the Trump rep was in the least interested in advancing the Russian agenda and not that of Trump is laughable.

I have no ******* idea what you're driving at since you didn't quote what you claim you're referencing, fool! The action the Trump rep took in your hypothetical would have the effect of unsettling effects and impacts to the US National election process. AGAIN READ THE FOLLOWING YOU DIM BULB!

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned, yet you keep insisting on using the term.

You can't ******* read, asshole?

ONE "plan or course of action" under Constitutional law is to have free, unfettered elections to fill the various vacancies in the National government.

Further you ******* ignorant twit, Article 1 § 4;

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

What the Hell was the result of that Article and section, shit for brains? Do we have "National Election" established by the Constitution and codified in law? Hell yes we do!

Also your "assumption" that the Trump rep was in the least interested in advancing the Russian agenda and not that of Trump is laughable.

I have no ******* idea what you're driving at since you didn't quote what you claim you're referencing, fool! The action the Trump rep took in your hypothetical would have the effect of unsettling effects and impacts to the US National election process. AGAIN READ THE FOLLOWING YOU DIM BULB!

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

 

[OKTexas]

Another long wordy FAIL. No where in the Constitution is a "national election" mentioned, yet you keep insisting on using the term.

You can't ******* read, asshole?

ONE "plan or course of action" under Constitutional law is to have free, unfettered elections to fill the various vacancies in the National government.

Further you ******* ignorant twit, Article 1 § 4;

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

What the Hell was the result of that Article and section, shit for brains? Do we have "National Election" established by the Constitution and codified in law? Hell yes we do!

Also your "assumption" that the Trump rep was in the least interested in advancing the Russian agenda and not that of Trump is laughable.

I have no ******* idea what you're driving at since you didn't quote what you claim you're referencing, fool! The action the Trump rep took in your hypothetical would have the effect of unsettling effects and impacts to the US National election process. AGAIN READ THE FOLLOWING YOU DIM BULB!

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here's a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You can't ******* read, asshole?
Further you ******* ignorant twit, Article 1 § 4;
What the Hell was the result of that Article and section, shit for brains? Do we have "National Election" established by the Constitution and codified in law? Hell yes we do!
I have no ******* idea what you're driving at since you didn't quote what you claim you're referencing, fool! The action the Trump rep took in your hypothetical would have the effect of unsettling effects and impacts to the US National election process. AGAIN READ THE FOLLOWING YOU DIM BULB!

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

 

[OKTexas]

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US. And all they did was insert truth and facts into the process with the emails. But I guess truth and facts are the enemy of a candidate and party who's bread and butter are lies and dirty tricks. Admit it, you're not interested in free and fair elections, all you're concerned with is winning at any costs. That includes calling the folks that beat you cheaters when they used the words and deeds of your own candidate and party against you. LOL

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

Once again you fail to understand that the the actions taken were against an opposing candidate and party, not the US.

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in making your party transparent and fair, then you don't have to worry about skeletons in the closet coming out and biting you on the ass.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

You can say it applies, I can say it doesn't till the cows come home, because it doesn't concern the federal government. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree. And you can do that without the reprehensible attitude. Bye!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You got the first part of that correct, in that the target was Clinton and her campaign. Congratulations, Tex, were making some headway here, finally, you dimwit! The obvious result and purpose was interference in our Free and Fair Election Process. Now, pertaining to the US and the election process, what does 18 U.S. Code § 953 say about a Trump Associate who colludes with a foreign Agent like the Russian Rep?

"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."

The above from the statute highlighted above points directly toward the Trump Associate as the person who violated the law. The law targets the person who committed the violation, not injured parties, you bloody fool! Clinton, her campaign and the American people were the ones who suffered the consequences of the collusion of the Trump scofflaw and the Russian and the resulting hypothetical damage to the US election process and the publics' confidence in same. If you still don't understand the obvious logic of that, get a third grader to explain it to you very slowly.

You and others have been informed before that I'm an Indy and have been for the last 43 years, and have been since Aug 1974 when Nixon boarded Marine 1 for the last time. Hell, I was even a Young Republican for a time until then. You make another foolish assumption, and that puts you in the fools corner yet again, Tex! And yet again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

You can say it applies, I can say it doesn't till the cows come home, because it doesn't concern the federal government. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree. And you can do that without the reprehensible attitude. Bye!

I don't just say it applies, Tex, I've proved that statute applies to your hypothetical scenario. You have no viable argument to support your multiple wacky positions, but supplant those with your stubborn stupidity to never admit error. GAWD DAMN you are an unethical son-of-a-*****, but you are finally waving the white flag so I'll take that with your surrender, Tex! Now go out and get a hat that fits, boy!

 

[OKTexas]

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

You can say it applies, I can say it doesn't till the cows come home, because it doesn't concern the federal government. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree. And you can do that without the reprehensible attitude. Bye!

I don't just say it applies, Tex, I've proved that statute applies to your hypothetical scenario. You have no viable argument to support your multiple wacky positions, but supplant those with your stubborn stupidity to never admit error. GAWD DAMN you are an unethical son-of-a-*****, but you are finally waving the white flag so I'll take that with your surrender, Tex! Now go out and get a hat that fits, boy!

**** off and die asshole, all you have is your opinion, no case law, no nothing. If you had a brain you'd have given up pages ago. It's been fun ******* with the two brain cells you have left, but now your just boring.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

You can say it applies, I can say it doesn't till the cows come home, because it doesn't concern the federal government. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree. And you can do that without the reprehensible attitude. Bye!

I don't just say it applies, Tex, I've proved that statute applies to your hypothetical scenario. You have no viable argument to support your multiple wacky positions, but supplant those with your stubborn stupidity to never admit error. GAWD DAMN you are an unethical son-of-a-*****, but you are finally waving the white flag so I'll take that with your surrender, Tex! Now go out and get a hat that fits, boy!

**** off and die asshole, all you have is your opinion, no case law, no nothing. If you had a brain you'd have given up pages ago. It's been fun ******* with the two brain cells you have left, but now your just boring.

Case law? You want case law for your pathetic hypothetical case? What a ******* loon! You got bested shit for brains, and that galls the Hell out of your pathetic, petty ass! I've enjoyed showing you up and watching you twist and turn, jumping from pillar to post with your deflection and dissembling as the pathetic piece of dishonest garbage you are! GAWD, what a phony and disreputable little man you are!

 

[radical right]

**** off and die asshole, all you have is your opinion, no case law, no nothing. If you had a brain you'd have given up pages ago. It's been fun ******* with the two brain cells you have left, but now your just boring.

Case law? You want case law for your pathetic hypothetical case? What a ******* loon! You got bested shit for brains, and that galls the Hell out of your pathetic, petty ass! I've enjoyed showing you up and watching you twist and turn, jumping from pillar to post with your deflection and dissembling as the pathetic piece of dishonest garbage you are! GAWD, what a phony and disreputable little man you are!

The man should run a dance school, because that's all he's good for.

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,

I still haven't forgotten child. I'm having a bit of a hard time getting a hold of a friend who is an attorney and congressional staffer. They've had her bouncing around the district doing constituent days.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1: Coffin v. Coffin

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1
Coffin v. Coffin

it appears to me that the privilege secured by it is not so much the privilege of the house as an organized body, as of each individual member composing it, who is entitled to this privilege, even against the declared will of the house. For he does not hold this privilege at the pleasure of the house; but derives it from the will of the people, expressed in the constitution, which is paramount to the will of either or both branches of the legislature. In this respect the privilege here secured resembles other privileges attached to each member by another part of the constitution, by which he is exempted from arrests on mesne (or original) process, during his going to, returning from, or attending the general court.

by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal.

I will not confine it to delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; but will extend it to the giving of a vote, to the making of a written report, and to every other act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office: and I would define the article, as securing to every member exemption from prosecution, for every thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office;

 

[OKTexas]

**** off and die asshole, all you have is your opinion, no case law, no nothing. If you had a brain you'd have given up pages ago. It's been fun ******* with the two brain cells you have left, but now your just boring.

Case law? You want case law for your pathetic hypothetical case? What a ******* loon! You got bested shit for brains, and that galls the Hell out of your pathetic, petty ass! I've enjoyed showing you up and watching you twist and turn, jumping from pillar to post with your deflection and dissembling as the pathetic piece of dishonest garbage you are! GAWD, what a phony and disreputable little man you are!

The man should run a dance school, because that's all he's good for.

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,

I still haven't forgotten child. I'm having a bit of a hard time getting a hold of a friend who is an attorney and congressional staffer. They've had her bouncing around the district doing constituent days.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1: Coffin v. Coffin

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1
Coffin v. Coffin

it appears to me that the privilege secured by it is not so much the privilege of the house as an organized body, as of each individual member composing it, who is entitled to this privilege, even against the declared will of the house. For he does not hold this privilege at the pleasure of the house; but derives it from the will of the people, expressed in the constitution, which is paramount to the will of either or both branches of the legislature. In this respect the privilege here secured resembles other privileges attached to each member by another part of the constitution, by which he is exempted from arrests on mesne (or original) process, during his going to, returning from, or attending the general court.

by enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal.

I will not confine it to delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; but will extend it to the giving of a vote, to the making of a written report, and to every other act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office: and I would define the article, as securing to every member exemption from prosecution, for every thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office;

Cool, so you're saying, open treason is part of the execution of the office. Got it. LMAO

.

 

[radical right]

Cool, so you're saying, open treason is part of the execution of the office. Got it. LMAO

.

I'm just quoting case law, that interpreted Article 1 Section 6, just like I said. The speech and debate clause has no exclusions. So no matter what a member of congress said in the well, he can't be charged with treason for saying it.

When you said:

You might want to look at the exceptions in Article 1, Section 6, they are not protected form treasonous speech.

.

You were wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

Cool, so you're saying, open treason is part of the execution of the office. Got it. LMAO

.

I'm just quoting case law, that interpreted Article 1 Section 6, just like I said. The speech and debate clause has no exclusions. So no matter what a member of congress said in the well, he can't be charged with treason for saying it.

When you said:

You might want to look at the exceptions in Article 1, Section 6, they are not protected form treasonous speech.

.

You were wrong.

Hummmm, I just thought of something. Was the senate even in session when Reid made that speech in a virtually empty chamber? So far I can't even find a video of the senate speech. I'll keep looking.

I did find one where he repeated it outside of congress. I don't remember that one.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ok time to stop playing. How about you provide case law of that particular act being applied to elections, any elections.

No need to, Tex! The onus is on you to either accept the truth on the face of the statute as it's written when applied to your hypothetical scenario, OR to present a VALID ARGUMENT why it wouldn't apply to your hypothetical scenario. You have tried and tried to bullshit your way around making a valid argument (just like I expected) after what, 10-12 attempts and failing at every one of them! So again:

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

Well here a little hint for you, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED UNDER 18 U.S. Code § 953, not even Ted Kennedy and he went to Russia and asked for their help to defeat Reagan.

So what...That ******* traitor Kerry didn't even get charged when he went to Paris in 1971 and had meetings with Madame Bihn during the Paris Peace Talks either! Doesn't change a thing, Tex. The statute is still in the US Code! You can't come up with a valid reason why it would not hypothetically apply to your hypothetical scenario, can you Cowboy. Simply because of no convictions? Come on, Tex, give the horseshit a break! So one more time, laddy;

The unlawful action under 18 U.S. Code § 953 took place between the Trump rep and the Russian rep! The offer by the Russian and the acceptance of that offer by the Trump rep was the ACTION TAKEN against US interests in a free and fair election for the purpose of destabilizing that election, that MEASURE in question, would have been violative of the statute you claim doesn't apply! Waltzing around that with all your quibbling will NOT CHANGE THE FACTS, TEX!

The two ACTING PARTIES of your hypothetical would, indeed, be colluding to hinder an important government process and that cooperation with the foreign entity by the Trump rep would violate the statute. Q.E.D. Now will you man up, or will your stupid pride keep you from admitting error?

You can say it applies, I can say it doesn't till the cows come home, because it doesn't concern the federal government. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree. And you can do that without the reprehensible attitude. Bye!

I don't just say it applies, Tex, I've proved that statute applies to your hypothetical scenario. You have no viable argument to support your multiple wacky positions, but supplant those with your stubborn stupidity to never admit error. GAWD DAMN you are an unethical son-of-a-*****, but you are finally waving the white flag so I'll take that with your surrender, Tex! Now go out and get a hat that fits, boy!

What white flag? You didn't answer his question...



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.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Cool, so you're saying, open treason is part of the execution of the office. Got it. LMAO

.

I'm just quoting case law, that interpreted Article 1 Section 6, just like I said. The speech and debate clause has no exclusions. So no matter what a member of congress said in the well, he can't be charged with treason for saying it.

When you said:

You might want to look at the exceptions in Article 1, Section 6, they are not protected form treasonous speech.

.

You were wrong.

Hummmm, I just thought of something. Was the senate even in session when Reid made that speech in a virtually empty chamber? So far I can't even find a video of the senate speech. I'll keep looking.

I did find one where he repeated it outside of congress. I don't remember that one.



.

Informative, damn...now I hate him even more

.