What exactly did they do?

[Faun]

No one said it’s a donation. Dayam, you actually get more ******* moronic with every post.

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, ******* moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded ******* moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

Jeez

Learn how to comprehend English, ya ******* moron.

Learn how to write what you mean, douchebag.

LOLOL

You're such a ******* moron. I wrote exactly what I intended. Don't blame me because you can't comprehend English.

 

[bripat9643]

The how does it violate any law?

Sorry, ******* moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded ******* moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

Jeez

Learn how to comprehend English, ya ******* moron.

Learn how to write what you mean, douchebag.

LOLOL

You're such a ******* moron. I wrote exactly what I intended. Don't blame me because you can't comprehend English.

Then you must be suffering from brain damage because what you wrote didn't convey anything that made sense.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

You're too fucked in the head then to know what he argued because that was exactly what he said. He claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech, which he claims nullifies the law because anyone has the 1st Amendment right to get anything on any candidate from any source, even from a foreign source.

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

******* moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

LOLOL

******* moron... I said Dershowitz said, "He [Dershowitz] claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech..."

And then I quoted Dershowitz saying what I said he said, "Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes."

You have a serious comprehension problem. You see what you want to see.

LOLOL

Yes, when someone says a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law, I see someone who said a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, ******* moron, but I posted the law and donations were not the only violation. Dayum, you’re one rightarded ******* moron, huh?

Whoever said "donations were not a violation?" Some are and some aren't.

Jeez

Learn how to comprehend English, ya ******* moron.

Learn how to write what you mean, douchebag.

LOLOL

You're such a ******* moron. I wrote exactly what I intended. Don't blame me because you can't comprehend English.

Then you must be suffering from brain damage because what you wrote didn't convey anything that made sense.

LOLOL

You're too funny, ******* moron.

 

[Faun]

Only if you can prove she willfully sought to obtain the dossier from a foreign national — which you proved she didn’t.

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

Her law firm followed the law. They hired an American-based research firm.

The firm obtained information illegally from foreign spies.

LOLOL

Now you switch your argument from Hillary broke the law to Fusion GPS broke the law.

******* moron, Fusion GPS was not running a campaign to be bound by campaign finance laws.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, you dumbfuck asshole, he's not saying the law is unconstitutional. He's saying the courts don't interpret it that, and if they did the First Amendment would take precedence. How would a court even determine what the information is worth? The fact is it can't, and it's absurd to believe that a law would make exercising your First Amendment rights illegal. No court has ever prosecuted anyone for such a violation, and no court never will, but desperate snowflakes like you have nothing else to use against Trump so you cling to this idiocy.

******* moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

LOLOL

******* moron... I said Dershowitz said, "He [Dershowitz] claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech..."

And then I quoted Dershowitz saying what I said he said, "Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes."

You have a serious comprehension problem. You see what you want to see.

LOLOL

Yes, when someone says a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law, I see someone who said a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law.

Unfortunately for your argument, he didn't say that.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmm, no, she paid for the dossier. Her law firm had to know that foreign spies were producing the dirt on Trump, especially after they reviewed the dossier. The idea that Hillary never saw the dossier doesn't pass the laugh test. Hillary, her law firm and Fusion GPS all had to have seen the dossier before it was passed off to the FBI and other parties.

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

Her law firm followed the law. They hired an American-based research firm.

The firm obtained information illegally from foreign spies.

LOLOL

Now you switch your argument from Hillary broke the law to Fusion GPS broke the law.

******* moron, Fusion GPS was not running a campaign to be bound by campaign finance laws.

I haven't changed my argument one bit.

 

[Faun]

******* moron …

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Alan Dershowitz

Thanks for quoting the text that supports my position. You really are a special kind of dumbass.

LOLOL

******* moron... I said Dershowitz said, "He [Dershowitz] claims that law is unconstitutional because it violates an individuals First Amendment right to free speech..."

And then I quoted Dershowitz saying what I said he said, "Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes."

You have a serious comprehension problem. You see what you want to see.

LOLOL

Yes, when someone says a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law, I see someone who said a law is unconstitutional because the First Amendment's right to free speech trumps the law.

Unfortunately for your argument, he didn't say that.

LOLOL

You're ******* brain-dead, ******* moron. I actually quoted him saying he believes the law is unconstitutional because a person's First Amendment rights trump the law....

"Of course not, and if it were to be prosecuted, the First Amendment would trump. A candidate has a right to get information from whatever source the information comes." ~ Dershowwitz

 

[Faun]

Nope, her law firm was not required by any law that you can site, requiring them to know where the research company they hired got their research from. That's why Hillary isn't even under investigation despite the president being Republican and House being controlled by Republicans and the Senate being controlled by Republicans and the Department of Justice being run by Republicans and Mueller being Republican.

Yeah, it pretty much is. Her law firm is required to follow all relevant laws. Hiring a law firm to do what would illegal for the client to do herself doesn't get the client off the hook. That's money laundering, which is another crime. These are the kind of sleazy maneuvers the Clintons have been using for decades, and you defend them to the hilt. That makes you as scummy as they are.

Her law firm followed the law. They hired an American-based research firm.

The firm obtained information illegally from foreign spies.

LOLOL

Now you switch your argument from Hillary broke the law to Fusion GPS broke the law.

******* moron, Fusion GPS was not running a campaign to be bound by campaign finance laws.

I haven't changed my argument one bit.

******* moron …. you were claiming Hillary broke the law. Now you're saying Fusion GPS broke the law.

Meanwhile, you still haven't proven Hillary willfully hired Steele and your brain is too fried to understand Fusion GPS was not running a campaign and therefore, not bound by campaign finance laws.

 

[Kat]

Nothing but for name calling. Should be warnings issued here.
Closed.