COLLUSION with RUSSIA CONFIRMED - Hillary Conspired at least TWICE to Affect the 2016 Election.

a reply to: Gemwolf

I just feel like this post will come back and bite you in the ass kind of hard. Time will tell.

It's only a crime if Hillary does it.

ATTENTION!

This thread is NOT in the Political Mud Pit forum!

No political trolling allowed.

Stay on the topic of the thread.

Do not reply to this post.

They have to save some of this drama to unfold during the next Presidential election cycle.

If there’s any real “collusion”, then we won’t know for certain until the months/weeks leading to the election.

Say it’s Clinton who’s guilty of it, and Biden is the top guy running on the left...the right has to be able to smear his campaign with all this. It’s too soon to unleash it all now because it gives the left 2 years to build up a new name.

Say Trump is the traitor in all this...the left knows that 2 more years of running his name through the mud, and the right along with it, is more strategic that ending it all now and assures them of the victory in 2020.

I suspect that we will have a better grasp of it all come November of this year if we pay close enough attention to key names running for office. But until then we will probably just keep getting the back and forth “he said she said” garbage that keeps getting put out there.

All theoretical of course, I have no clue who did what, when, where, why or how because the media sucks as bad as the government.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gemwolf

I just feel like this post will come back and bite you in the ass kind of hard. Time will tell.

It's only a crime if Hillary does it.

Noooo.. It was revealed last night that former CIA Director JOHN BRENNAN was the "quarterback" of a TEAM of criminals.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

No doubt there's a HEAD COACH and a TEAM OWNER also.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Gemwolf

I just feel like this post will come back and bite you in the ass kind of hard. Time will tell.

It's only a crime if Hillary does it.

I would word it a little differently. If it's a crime, Hillary did it.

There is 24/7 collusion with Russia, since before the cold war.

It's the same world government!

a reply to: carewemust

So the people who are caught with their hand in the cookie jar aren't the real guilty culprit? It's the people who had nothing to do with the meeting who entrapped them? Yeah that spin makes a LOT of sense... /s

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

I just feel like this post will come back and bite you in the ass kind of hard. Time will tell.

You can't dispute the facts so you make an emotional "prediction?" Well, as you say, time will tell. It's been years since the HRC witch hunt started... let's see how long the Russiagate one lasts.

If I could dispute things, I would have. Right now, we all have to wait for all the facts to come out. If the FISA thing goes as it's billed, and we find out the tower meeting was a set up as it appears, then your entire narrative is gone. If nothing comes from it, then you will be draped with riches and jewels, and worshiped for the amazing prophet you are. Time will tell.

I'm probably not telling you something you don't already realize but the 2016 will go down in history as the most FUBAR election ever in the US.

It was a wild wild west, conspiratorial, back-channel war between what could be the two most unworthy people in politics to hold the title of POTUS, as well as the two most ego-maniacal. Laws be damned!

For someone with the experience of HRC, what a unbelievably careless politician and presidential candidate. The list is too long to dive into, but to have the media beholden to you, the enormous amount of disposable cash available, and the number of Obama holdovers already in place, not to mention a "98%" of winning -- how do you f*ck that up!?!?!?!?

Trump has a laundry list of issues professionally and personally, with the odds stacked against him - yet he mows through the Republican field and well, timing is everything. The American people were ready to reject any continuation of a dynasty and give the government and career politicians the middle finger salute. It's rather ironic because since the OJ Simpson reality show that was the trial changed the way the media covered huge stories, and it was this evolution that gave birth to the opportunities for people like Trump to become the most powerful person in the US.

I/others could go on and on about the surreal story lines of the 2016 election, the events leading up to it and those we're debating to this day.

In one word - EPIC!!!

a reply to: carewemust


Wow. Just wow. Ok, I understand you guys hate Hillary and need to subvert the conversation to deflect from Trump. I can understand that. But your problem is you lack any semblence of authenticity or of being genuine. You can't defend Trump, so you try to bring others down to his level. It's sad and pretty pathetic.


So you expect people to believe Trump was set up back at a time when no one-not even himself- thought he could win? Suurrree. And Putin worked with the Clinton campaign? Seriously? If you believe that you'll believe anything. Which makes sense given your support for Trump.

Clinton supporters have to be the sorriest bunch of losers ever.
How can 1 not look at her and not sense evil.

Lolz at a sting operation.. it's hilarious anyone actually believes this. How about some actual legitimate sources and proof instead of vague guesswork and hilarious leaps of logic.

But whatever.. if Hillary is guilty of a crime, fine.. throw her in jail. She can share a cell with Trump. Because if it ended up being illegal for her, then certainly it was also illegal for Trump. Or maybe she can shack up with Trump's son.. wherever the guilt ends up.

a reply to: DJW001

that isnt how treason works at all and people (on both sides) really need to stop parroting nonsense

www.nbcnews.com...

Get the Think newsletter. In a nationwide survey released on Wednesday, Public Policy Polling asked Americans “What do you think is more treasonous: coordinating with Russia to win a presidential election, or not standing and applauding for Donald Trump?” Whatever one’s political beliefs or disposition toward the current president, the correct answer should have been “neither.” (Instead, 69% said it was the former.) Among other things, the mere existence of this question underscores the need for a long overdue moratorium on the blithe characterization of things as “treason”— and for all of us to be far more careful when using that term to describe conduct that we believe is some combination of reprehensible, criminal and perhaps even impeachable. Treasonous acts may be criminal, but criminal acts are almost never treason. As Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Founders went out of their way to define treason narrowly because they knew how it had been repeatedly abused in the past.

because they saw this crap happening way back when and seemed to assume the partisan bs that would infest us as a nation and did not want it being used willy nilly to smear opponents over politics .
also from above source

As a federal appeals court explained in 1986: “[t]he reason for the restrictive definition is apparent from the historical backdrop of the treason clause. The framers of the Constitution were reluctant to facilitate such prosecutions because they were well aware of abuses, and they themselves were traitors in the eyes of England.” As a result, treason is, in some respects, the most specific crime in our legal system — and certainly among the hardest to prove. It’s also the only crime that can be used as the basis for expatriating a natural-born American citizen.

constitutioncenter.org...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

were not at war with Russia,Donald trump is not levying armies to take the field against the usa there for its not even close to the legal definition of treason that is VERY narrowly defined to prevent it from being used against people with out just cause. so every time some one screams treason we mostly just laugh at exactly how wrong they are in parroting a false narritive

and before any one jumps on the "aid and comfort provision it too is also VERY narrowly defined
www.jstor.org...

hence ,treason by Levying war is more generally comitted in internal insurrections directed against the government by persons in the united states; where as giving aid and comfort is generally comitted in connection with a war waged against the united states by a foriegn power .when those who comitt treason by levying war become and orignized body politic ,however they may become "enemies" within the perview of the law,and give them aid and comfort to such enemies will consitute treason.

among the specific acts which have been held to come within the perview of the above are the following:A: selling goods to or buying goods from the enemy government or to or from its agents or forces B: aid and comfort may be furnished to the enemy by giving intelegence,either oral or written in attempt to aid him in his acts of hostility.C:joining the enemy in times of war or offering services by letter.Ddelivering up prisoners and deserters to an enemy.E trade with enemy subjects.F; acts directed against the government property with intent to cause injurty thereto and in aid of the enemy. G;acts witch tend and are designed to defeat ,obstruct,or weaken our own arms. H;acts if performed by domestic insurrectionaries,would consitute levving of war ,may equally consitute giving aid and comfort to the enmey in connection with or for the assistance of a foriegn enemy waging war against the united states

so not being at war NOT treason

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
"This is long over, just stop it! This didn't even happen! STOP WASTING MONEY ON A WITCH-HUNT!"

(Every Trump+Collusion-thread since forever)

Thing is, that the investigation on Trump has been going for year(s) now, while the one on Hillary haven't even started.

Weird. You do realize there was about a dozen independent investigations into Hillary Clinton from virtually every committee in the Senate, House and IG? Plus FBI, DOJ et al? It is sad what supporting trump does to basic brain functioning. It's like it warps certain functions and erases memory in others.

originally posted by: [post=23675257]

were not at war with Russia,Donald trump is not levying armies to take the field against the usa there for its not even close to the legal definition of treason that is VERY narrowly defined to prevent it from being used against people with out just cause.

Uh, OK. The Rosenbergs were executed by the US Government for spying for Russia (who we were not at war with at the time)

"Conspiracy to Commit Espionage" was the legal charge.

Treason was the general description.

Just like their is no legal "Collusion" charge.

The technical charge is likely to be "Conspiracy to defraud the United States Government".

To claim that a legal bar must be met in a court of law before someone can describe an act as "Treason" or "Collusion" is just stupid.

I don't need a technical court ruling before describing someone as an A-Hole.

Treason, Collusion etc. are NOUNS, not just Legal Terms.

a reply to: soberbacchus

sigh remain ignorant if you want but its the only crime defined by the us Constitution,as you said we executed the rosenbergs for giving military intelligence of a critical nature to a foreign power secrets of a nuclear nature if memory serves me . you can scream treason all you want that wont make it true.

slate.com...

A convincing case could now be made that President Donald Trump has abused his power, obstructed justice, violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution—all impeachable offenses—and badly tarnished our national security. But he has not committed treason, and his critics should steer clear of such hyperbole, lest they play into his hands and invigorate his supporters.

and

“Treason against the United States,” reads Article III, Section 3, “shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Notice the word “only.” The founders, who had their roots in rebellion and foresaw more revolutions ahead, wanted to ensure the law wasn’t expanded to cover other lesser crimes. Notice also the words “levying war” and “enemies.” In the few treason cases tried, mostly after World War II, the courts have ruled that “enemies” implies opposing armies in wartime. Jurists have also agreed that, while Congress doesn’t have to declare war in order for acts of betrayal to be considered treasonous, there does have to be an open state of “armed conflict” between the United States and some enemy. Under this definition, we are not at war with Russia. Therefore, no American, including Trump, can be properly accused of treason in his dealings with Russia. Would cyberattacks, such as those that Russia launched against the U.S. election process in 2016, meet the bar? Case law here is still in its early stages, but the current consensus holds that, in order for cyberoffensive operations to be deemed acts of war, they must directly cause death or significant physical destruction. Whatever else the Russians have done, they have not done that. Treason is such a narrowly cast crime that prosecutors have only rarely invoked it. Since 1954, there has been only one federal indictment on a charge of treason—in 2006, against Adam Gadahn, who produced videotapes supporting al-Qaida, and he was killed in Pakistan before he could be brought to trial. Even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, tried for giving atomic secrets to the Soviets, were charged not with treason but with violating the Espionage Act.

not in an armed conflict either(thankfully as we dont need the super powers going to war) the left needs to be very carefull about trying to remove trump as they don't know the Hell mike pence will put them through and im sure it was a tactic of trump in picking him , pence wants abortion gone and to destroy pretty much every thing the left holds dear and if you think trump has been doing things you don't like wait tell pence gets the chair and gets to start setting policy and to the left god forbid replace a future scotus retirement with some one of a fundamentalist nature and every time you guys keep pushing this narrative it energizes his base right before midterm elections

www.theguardian.com...

And it could backfire. Particularly in a polarized era, the president’s supporters might see impeachment as a coup d’etat designed to nullify the outcome of a democratic election – and that might further entrench those opponents into their partisan corner. Indeed, conservative groups are already calling conversation about impeachment a “coup” attempt against Trump – and are using this to mobilize supporters for the midterm elections. In light of these considerations, will attempting impeachment save the republic from a dangerous president? Will it advance a political movement? Or will it just unleash a tit-for-tat process that results in more polarization, political hardball, and escalating threats? In the last few decades, “impeachment talk” has been on the rise, with partisans on both sides raising the specter of exercising this grave power more and more frequently. And in a post-Citizens United world, we should expect billionaires on the right and left to try to shape the political landscape in support of impeaching presidents they dislike. If taken to an extreme, the result could be that frequent impeachments will turn the president into a prime minister, and our government into something more like a parliamentary system.

you want to set a precident of impeaching some one for doing things you dont like what happens when the other side gets or maintains its majority and does the same to your candidate?

www.newyorker.com...

Opposition to impeachment seems to be a rare point of agreement between Trump’s followers and the leadership of the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, told me, “I don’t like to talk about impeachment.” She explained, “Impeachment is not a political tool. It has to be based on just the law and the facts. When I was Speaker, people wanted me to impeach George Bush for the war in Iraq because it was based on false information, but you can’t just go from one impeachment to the next. When we are in the majority, we are going to try to be unifying, and there is no way to do impeachment in a bipartisan way right now.” The numbers back up Pelosi’s wariness. According to a Quinnipiac University poll taken in April, fifty-two per cent of American voters oppose impeachment. Another poll from around the same time reported that forty-seven per cent would definitely vote against a candidate who wanted to remove Trump from office. (In a sign of how divided the country is, forty-two per cent would definitely vote for a candidate who made such a promise.)

www.cheatsheet.com...

Some Americans think that impeachment means Trump will have to pack up his bags and head back to his cheesy ’80s penthouse — but that’s not necessarily true. In fact, neither president who was successfully impeached actually had to leave office. That’s because of how the process works. The house majority leader must put the impeachment to a vote, and the decision is based on a simple majority of the full chamber. But even if it passed the House, the Senate must also have a trial and convict the president by a two-thirds vote. So while Johnson and Clinton were both technically impeached, the Senate convicted neither, and they both remained in office. Richard Nixon had the best likelihood of removal from office, but he resigned before the proceedings could begin.

so even if "impeached" still does not magically get rid of him ,and if by some insane fluke they get pence too congratulations you have just appointed president Paul ryan who may want out of politics but i doubt would give up a chance to be president of the usa ,especially as he could then run for two more terms

originally posted by: Gemwolf
I take it you mean "confirmed" in the broadest possible terms?

Perhaps it's time for everyone to take a look in the mirror...
Democrats: "Trump definitely colluded with Russia because some reason but Hillary is most certainly innocent and Republicans are stupid to believe otherwise."
Republicans: "Hillary definitely colluded with Russia because some reason but Trump is most certainly innocent and Democrats are stupid to believe otherwise."

Resume name-calling and further divide.

Do you hear yourselves? The hypocrisy is actually quite frustrating and has moved far beyond absurd...

And speaking of: Republicans should really make up their minds whether collusion is a crime or not.

Hypocrisy is frustrating. The truth is that only one side is guilty of it. The other is just telling the truth. In depth investigation is what it takes to determine which is which. Only one side is being investigated and no collusion has been found. Maybe its time to start investigating the other side...

a reply to: carewemust

it doesn't seem to matter who the center of attention is. it could be clinton, it could be trump, it could be bush. any whiff of a scandal from any source and people lose their reason. the clinton witch hunt has been going on for so long now and nothing has ever been proven against her. yet, many people will claim she is guilty of some serious crimes. this is yet another scandal piece where she is tried in the court of public opinion. i fear the day when the court of public opinion is held with higher regard than the truth.

today we have the investigations of trump and his ties to russia and their role in the last election. no one knows (yet) if any wrong doing has gone on. one day all the evidence will come out and if it goes to trial then we will have closure.

until that day, i say trump is innocent until proven guilty.

i'm not a republican or a democrat. i'm not a fan of either person. but i can be fair and hold my judgement until all evidence is presented before a court of law.

this is something the american people need to do too and quit bickering. we are all on the same side.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
...The truth is that only one side is guilty of it. The other is just telling the truth...

OR neither side is guilty.
OR the Russians played BOTH sides.

The truth? The truth is that both sides are getting more and more detached from reality. The past 2+ years there has so much political distraction strategies, misdirection, lies, mudslinging and just plain absurdity that it feels like we're living in some horrific twilight zone.

It's really sad that people have become so consumed and divided by politics (the entire circus) - focusing on a single tree - that most have completely lost sight of the forest. It's not new, but IMO it has historically never been this bad.

originally posted by: Gemwolf

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
...The truth is that only one side is guilty of it. The other is just telling the truth...

OR neither side is guilty.
OR the Russians played BOTH sides.

The truth? The truth is that both sides are getting more and more detached from reality. The past 2+ years there has so much political distraction strategies, misdirection, lies, mudslinging and just plain absurdity that it feels like we're living in some horrific twilight zone.

It's really sad that people have become so consumed and divided by politics (the entire circus) - focusing on a single tree - that most have completely lost sight of the forest. It's not new, but IMO it has historically never been this bad.

Meanwhile, Russia is getting everything they wanted. All this division. They couldn't have asked for a more successful outcome.