Trump threatens extortion

[rightwinger]

Manafort has a plea deal that involves his time as Trumps campaign manager. If Trump offers to pardon other offenses in return for silence, that is criminal

That's fair enough.

But if President Trump offers Mr. Manafort a pardon for the crimes he was already convicted of and with no conditions, it isn't a problem

Given Manaforts involvement in Trumps current case .....it is a problem

Trump doesn't have a current case.

Mueller seems to think so

 

[rightwinger]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

Is his penis orange?

 

[g5000]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

Is his penis orange?

It looks like Toad.

 

[Faun]

No Democrat I know of threatened to compromise national security in an attempt to prevent being investigated. Of whom do you speak?

So you think exposing corrupt practices in the Justice Department threatens national security?

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Wrong, criminal evidence is not a requirement. There doesn't even have to be a crime, it could be something legal but embarrassing, like revealing an affair. Also, the crime is in demanding money in exchange for silence; not for revealing the matter at hand. So even blackmail based on the belief that there was a crime or something embarrassing is all that is needed, even if there was none; as the crime is solely on the actions of the blackmailer.

Here is an example. This is the law in Florida. As you can see, a crime on the victim's part is not required.

836.05 Threats; extortion.—Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. [/URL]775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.​

Trump just blackmailed Democrats and the sycophantic right, ever diligent and loyal to trump, leap once again at the opportunity to defend his boorish tactics.

 

[Polishprince]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

Is his penis orange?

The libs show their racist selves by attacking their President because of the color of his skin.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you think exposing corrupt practices in the Justice Department threatens national security?

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Then why is Trump threatening to release the classified documents?

He clearly believes you rubes are stupid enough to read into them what he tells you to bleev.

Or perhaps he really does have something very damaging.

Looking back now, Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure Trump never revealed or declassify anything in that document. Why were they so concerned if they really believed he had nothing?

 

[g5000]

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Then why is Trump threatening to release the classified documents?

He clearly believes you rubes are stupid enough to read into them what he tells you to bleev.

Or perhaps he really does have something very damaging.

Looking back now, Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure Trump never revealed or declassify anything in that document. Why were they so concerned if they really believed he had nothing?

They were concerned about exposing sources thus putting them in danger.

Duh.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you think exposing corrupt practices in the Justice Department threatens national security?

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Wrong, criminal evidence is not a requirement. There doesn't even have to be a crime, it could be something legal but embarrassing, like revealing an affair. Also, the crime is in demanding money in exchange for silence; not for revealing the matter at hand. So even blackmail based on the belief that there was a crime or something embarrassing is all that is needed, even if there was none; as the crime is solely on the actions of the blackmailer.

Here is an example. This is the law in Florida. As you can see, a crime on the victim's part is not required.

836.05 Threats; extortion.—Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. [/URL]775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.​

Trump just blackmailed Democrats and the sycophantic right, ever diligent and loyal to trump, leap once again at the opportunity to defend his boorish tactics.

So what does that have to do with what I said?

If Trump doesn't have anything, he has no ability to blackmail anybody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Then why is Trump threatening to release the classified documents?

He clearly believes you rubes are stupid enough to read into them what he tells you to bleev.

Or perhaps he really does have something very damaging.

Looking back now, Democrats fought tooth and nail to make sure Trump never revealed or declassify anything in that document. Why were they so concerned if they really believed he had nothing?

They were concerned about exposing sources thus putting them in danger.

Duh.

Oh, I'm sure that's what they were concerned about.

 

[nat4900]

Common ploy from Trump

Claim you have damaging information on an opponent and use it as a threat

Somehow, that information never materializes

You don't remember that time he proved Obama was born in Kenya?

*crickets

Yeah, neither do I...

As I remember

He had his best people looking into it and they couldn’t believe what they are finding

But, but......they did come back nicely tanned from all those months in Hawaii....LOL

 

[Faun]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

LOL

They don't call him "Tiny" for nothin'.

 

[Faun]

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Wrong, criminal evidence is not a requirement. There doesn't even have to be a crime, it could be something legal but embarrassing, like revealing an affair. Also, the crime is in demanding money in exchange for silence; not for revealing the matter at hand. So even blackmail based on the belief that there was a crime or something embarrassing is all that is needed, even if there was none; as the crime is solely on the actions of the blackmailer.

Here is an example. This is the law in Florida. As you can see, a crime on the victim's part is not required.

836.05 Threats; extortion.—Whoever, either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of any crime or offense, or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. [/URL]775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.​

Trump just blackmailed Democrats and the sycophantic right, ever diligent and loyal to trump, leap once again at the opportunity to defend his boorish tactics.

So what does that have to do with what I said?

If Trump doesn't have anything, he has no ability to blackmail anybody.

That's not true. Like I said, all that is required is that Trump believes he has something on them, and he does; and then he uses that to coerce them into giving into his demands.

 

[deanrd]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

Is his penis orange?

The libs show their racist selves by attacking their President because of the color of his skin.

What color would that be? I'm still trying to figure it out.

 

[Polishprince]

They were concerned about exposing sources thus putting them in danger.

Duh.

We know who the source was for the Urination Dossier was already.

And the "danger" they face is public ridicule and lawsuits from the people whose reputations were destroyed like Carter Page, after being illegally tapped.

 

[Polishprince]

So...as I was saying...while Crooked Lyin' Crazy Donald was parading Clinton's women before the cameras, he was suborning his own lawyer to pay off his porn star mistress who he fucked while Melania was home nursing Barron.

The payoff to Ms. Daniels was legal, regardless of whether Mr. Trump did her or not.

BTW, I don't think that Trump fucked her anyhow. Ms. Daniels testified in her book that Mr. Trump has a small penis. But Trump's testimony in his debate with Little Marco proves the exact opposite. Daniels was probably having relations with someone else.

Is his penis orange?

The libs show their racist selves by attacking their President because of the color of his skin.

What color would that be? I'm still trying to figure it out.

Maybe President Trump will answer if Mueller puts that question into his written interrogatories.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you think exposing corrupt practices in the Justice Department threatens national security?

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

What makes you think releasing these particular classified documents woud threaten national security?

I said it could, not that it necessarily would. Obviously, I'm not privy to its contents. But given material is classified to protect national security, declassifying it for the purpose of blackmailing political opponents so they hopefully won't investigate the president, certainly poses that risk. That's why we've never seen a president make such a careless threat.

You'd care about this nation if you weren't such a committed cult member who puts the president above everything else.

Spoken like a true cult member who puts Democratic politics above the welfare and security of the nation. The Democrats are threatening to squander tax payer money on investigations for the purpose of harassing the President and driving his approval ratings down instead of dealing with the nation's issues, and you think that's just fine, but you make up nonsense about the documents he is threatening to release being a danger to national security. Have you no shame at all or is it you have no intelligence at all?

LOLOLOL

You crack me up. You don't even know what investigations might pop up -- yet here you are, already claiming they'll be "squandering tax payer money." But you do reveal more than you intend. Was "harassing the president and driving his approval ratings down" the reason Republicans re-opened Whitewater? And then parlayed that into endless investigations like travelgate, filegate, vincefostergate, etc...

Nah, it is most certainly you who's swallowed the Kool-Aid. Every last drop.

So what you're saying is that you approve of opening investigations in the House for harassing the President and improving Democrats' chances in 2020, a clear abuse of power and a waste of taxpayer money, and this leads you to make up lies about the President threatening national security. In post after post you reveal to us that you have no idea why you hate the President so much.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

What makes you think releasing these particular classified documents woud threaten national security?

I said it could, not that it necessarily would. Obviously, I'm not privy to its contents. But given material is classified to protect national security, declassifying it for the purpose of blackmailing political opponents so they hopefully won't investigate the president, certainly poses that risk. That's why we've never seen a president make such a careless threat.

You'd care about this nation if you weren't such a committed cult member who puts the president above everything else.

Given the ongoing Mueller investigation

Offering a potential pardon to Manafort and using presidential powers to block an investigation of criminal acts is obviously obstruction of justice

What's ethically wrong with offering Manafort a pardon?

None of the crimes that Manafort was tried on has anything to do with President Trump.

Because Manafort's legal challenges with Mueller aren't over. Trump is effectively obstructing Mueller's investigation now.

In your feverish imagination, perhaps, but not in legal terms.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

What makes you think releasing these particular classified documents woud threaten national security?

I said it could, not that it necessarily would. Obviously, I'm not privy to its contents. But given material is classified to protect national security, declassifying it for the purpose of blackmailing political opponents so they hopefully won't investigate the president, certainly poses that risk. That's why we've never seen a president make such a careless threat.

You'd care about this nation if you weren't such a committed cult member who puts the president above everything else.

Given the ongoing Mueller investigation

Offering a potential pardon to Manafort and using presidential powers to block an investigation of criminal acts is obviously obstruction of justice

What's ethically wrong with offering Manafort a pardon?

None of the crimes that Manafort was tried on has anything to do with President Trump.

Manafort has a plea deal that involves his time as Trumps campaign manager. If Trump offers to pardon other offenses in return for silence, that is criminal

Nothing Manafort is accused of involves Trump and in two years of harassing and threatening everyone who has ever known Trump, Mueller has come up with nothing on the President. Since the only justification for appointing a special counsel was to investigate allegations of collusion and Mueller has failed to find any evidence of collusion, if he were an honorable man, or even just an honest man, he would resign.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So you think exposing corrupt practices in the Justice Department threatens national security?

No, I think releasing classified documents for the purpose of getting even with political opponents can. The purpose of declassifying such documents is when doing so no longer exposes national security. Not to blackmail one’s political opponents into not investigating him.

How can it be blackmail if nobody did anything wrong?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It’s blackmail regardless of whether or not there was wrong doing.

No, blackmail is when you have criminal evidence against somebody and are threatening to reveal that evidence unless your demands are met. If there is no criminal evidence, there can't be blackmail.

Then why is Trump threatening to release the classified documents?

He clearly believes you rubes are stupid enough to read into them what he tells you to bleev.

For the same reason the Democrats are threatening to open several investigations of the President: because they believe rubes like you will believe anything they want you to believe.

 

[Dale Smith]

Common ploy from Trump

Claim you have damaging information on an opponent and use it as a threat

Somehow, that information never materializes

Didn't Trump have a source that would "prove" something about Obama's birth certificate?

What happened to that?

It has been proven to ad naseum that Barrypuppet's certificate of live birth was a fraudulent document......try and keep up.

It was only proven to crazy people.

No, lil faun, an Italian company that specializes in extracting information from multimedia files ( Forlabs) said the following....
“We had two experts from two countries in separate disciplines of forensics that came to one conclusion: Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate it not authentic,” according to their findings.

I am not saying that Barrypuppet wasn't born in the United States and nor am I claiming that none must be born in the USA to be the CEO of USA.INC...what I am saying is that Barrypuppet tried to pull one over on the sheeple.

Sucks to be you, lil faun....

(snicker)