Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: Kharron

Yeah thats a big nothing burger you got there and I think you know it.

But lets say you Marxist get your way, what then, are you going to be prepared for the violent war that will come next, do you think we will ever accept any of your leaders?

originally posted by: sprockets2000
a reply to: Kharron

Yeah thats a big nothing burger you got there and I think you know it.

But lets say you Marxist get your way, what then, are you going to be prepared for the violent war that will come next, do you think we will ever accept any of your leaders?

You might be ill in the head if...

You predict violent war if Trump is ever found guilty and held to account.

Maybe you can go occupy a nature preserve or something?

a reply to: UKTruth

Right, Collusion isn't a crime.
I think the technical term is Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States or alternatively 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.

That and Perjury Under Oath, Obstruction of Justice, Racketeering and Computer Fraud, Failure to Register as a Foreign Agent etc. etc.

There is a bevy of laws that combine as easy substitutes for the adjective "Collusion".

We will know soon enough. I imagine Mueller has reserved the most controversial Indictment Recommendations for last.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron


This is fun!

I can't wait to accuse every leftist candidate of treason the next time they look at opposition research!

*giggles and claps hands*

If, and only if, the assistance with the research came from a foreign entity, you would be correct. Look at Title 52 of the U.S. Code.

a reply to: Kharron

Actually, the liar and deceiver here is you. It has been obvious since the day the emails were released that the purpose of the meeting was to get dirt. But that never happened (as acknowledged by all of the people at the meeting plus trump in the tweet above) and likely isn't illegal at all. Yet you say:

we now know straight from the President's mouth that the meeting was not about the adoption of children but rather what everyone already knew -- an exchange of political dirt for political favors.

That's some hefty spin, you're now saying you know what was discussed? Or did your reading comprehension fail you and you misunderstood what trump meant when he said the meeting went nowhere?

Then there is this whopper:

We can now deduce that in exchange for most likely promising to do a favor and work on taking down the Magnitsky Act, political dirt on HRC was offered in exchange. Perhaps more than just dirt? Assistance?

We have no evidence that would suggest such a quid pro quo, nor is it logical to deduce that. If you believe it is, please explain your logical steps.

What will DJT do if Don Jr. gets arrested?

Pardon him. As any good father would.

What do you call an act like this -- "Hey, you help me get elected and I help you with dismantling the legislature that is hurting your country?"

Politics as usual... but again you haven't proved anything new to suggest that was the case.

Will he come clean to protect his family and accept the blame? What if Cohen is being truthful that he knows DJT knew about the meeting ahead of time? That would make him accomplice to said conspiracy.

Can someone who actually likes DJT and is close to him please take his phone away before he does something worse than incriminate himself? I think his phone should be classified as a weapon of mass destruction.

That's just delusion to the max. What would you do if obama is gang raped by a herd of buffalo tomorrow!?!? IDK, it's crazy! Someone should tell him to stay away from the buffalo!

a reply to: F4guy

Which has already happened in every election since probably 1880

a reply to: soberbacchus

It is also indisputably a direct and illegal act of working with a Foreign Government to benefit a US Presidential Campaign.

So hillary and the DNC are guilty?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It has been obvious since the day the emails were released that the purpose of the meeting was to get dirt.

Right WE did. And thus, makes it illegal per

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

That's some hefty spin, you're now saying you know what was discussed? Or did your reading comprehension fail you and you misunderstood what trump meant when he said the meeting went nowhere?

Doesn't matter one bit as, if you see above, the express or implied promise, which already made the act illegal.

We have no evidence that would suggest such a quid pro quo, nor is it logical to deduce that. If you believe it is, please explain your logical steps.

We have Trump on twitter saying it. I'm pretty certain that qualifies as evidence.

Pardon him. As any good father would.

No, any good father would have taught his son or daughter how not to be a lying scum bag in the first place.

a reply to: alphabetaone

You realize that
A) Jr wasn't part of the campaign
B) your asinine understanding of that law makes all opposition research outside of the US, illegal
C) that law applies to the foreign nationals not US citizens

Here's a nice little article by a law professor who made the same emotional mistake you've made in your interpretation of thing of value, but later reflected on it and realized his obvious mistake.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Also please link to trump saying there was a quid pro quo to drop sanctions in return for help winning the election.

a reply to: TonyS

It should be...

Oppo research is definitely a thing of value. That is why parties pay millions of dollars every year to obtain it..

It is such a crazy occurrence there is no real precedent for a sitting president to have helped an adversary government swing an election..

So there is not an age old precedent of the law being used that way..

The real question is “do you think it should be ok??”


Should American citizens be allowed to help North Korea , Iran and Russia swing US elections so they can have their politician of choice???

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Opposition research is speech, not a thing of value.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I’m not the previous poster , but just for the record Trump has admitted to his son going to meet with Russian spies SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of accepting “secret government documents “ on his political opponents as a show of support by the Russians an government for Trump...


I don’t see how the fact we don’t know specifically what trump was trading fie it to be both crappy and a crime..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I know you're not, you just made the same argument which is not the case.

What makes you think trump was trading anything for it? He released the email chain. He never offers anything other than the acceptance of the meeting.

a reply to: alphabetaone

No, any good father would have taught his son or daughter how not to be a lying scum bag in the first place.

Noted, alphabetaone will never help his child when they screw up because he should have taught them not to.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron


This is fun!

I can't wait to accuse every leftist candidate of treason the next time they look at opposition research!

*giggles and claps hands*

If, and only if, the assistance with the research came from a foreign entity, you would b

e correct. Look at Title 52 of the U.S. Code.

Say like from a former British agent?

tRump loyalists desperately need to put their hopes on a different, so called conservative republican, because he will certainly be your downfall. If you haven't figured it out by now you should pay close attention to the midterms and the ones tRump, supposedly campaigned for.

a reply to: hoss53

Trump's candidates are winning their primary's

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xpert11

How was the dossier a contributor to the campaign. It's a collection of memos.

a reply to: xpert11

It's worth noting that there has never been a case where a judge came even close to ruling that opposition research is a thing of value.