It Begins: Journalists start admitting Trump-Russia conspiracy was a fabricated lie

PostmodernProphet said:
I've carved the answer on your fucking forehead.......not sure what else I can do to satisfy you.......the answer is 1) there has been no collusion under the definition you claim to use......2) even if there was, collusion is not a crime for which the president can be impeached and 3) every other lib'rul has given up hope on "collusion" and has moved on the money laundering, another loser fantasy........
Click to expand...

It's fun to watch you spazz-dance with her boot up your ass when she's utterly demolished you.
 
Oneuli said:
No. As you're aware (and as everyone who has read the exchange is aware), you've dodged the question every single time and continue to do so.

So, what definition of collusion are you using to say there wasn't collusion? Maybe this time you'll find your courage. Somehow, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

yours.....post #200......same answer I've given you many times already....
 
Oneuli said:
Obviously not. The idea that information has value is an age-old one that is firmly established in the law. It is, for example, the basis for claiming damages in any number of contractual arrangements. The slippery slope here is the one you're headed down when, for the sake of defending the Trump administration, you want to assert the existence of an invisible clause in campaign finance law that says that a thing of value cannot include valuable information. If we go down that slope then, as I've explained, you may as well not have such laws, since anyone can then spend any amount on any campaign, so long as the services provided are confined to information services.



That depends entirely on the context, obviously. If it's an ordinary exchange of information where the campaign is just asking questions to gather information as ordinarily happens, then it would not be a violation, since it then isn't a donation to the campaign. But picture if, instead, Mexican agents were to contact a Democratic campaign and offer to meet with the Clinton campaign in order to provide valuable information from cyber-espionage, damaging to Donald Trump, expressly as part of the Mexican government's efforts to get Clinton elected. What if the Clinton people were so lacking in patriotism that rather than report that to the FBI, they agreed to the meeting, so they could solicit that valuable donation. Would that be a campaign finance violation? Of course it would.



Yes, and information has value, too. Companies spend billions of dollars on R&D for example, where the only product is information. Often the investment dwarfs the cost of buying a whole fleet of planes. But you want to assign the value of $0 to that information.... not because it is remotely sane to do so, but because you think that's the path to excusing the Trump campaign's conduct.



EXACTLY! In the same way, being offered stolen goods is not a crime, but conspiring to receive stolen goods is. If someone offers to sell you something you know they have no legal right to sell you, and you go to the cops about it, you're simply doing your civic duty. If, instead, you agree to meet with them to arrange for the transfer of the goods, you're committing a felony. What Trump Jr. (and Kushner and Manafort) did was equivalent to arranging to meet with a fence to take possession of stolen goods.



As you know, you will say every single criminal act by Trump in his campaign is a "nothing burger," no matter what, because that's the exact point handed down by the conservative apparatchiks. Let me guess: Trump's conspiracy to pay off Stephanie Clifford and the other sex worker, to protect his campaign, without disclosure (in contravention of campaign finance law) was also a "nothing burger," right?
Click to expand...

I knew you’d make an excuse for the Dreamer lol.

Just like you’ll make excuses for the DNC *actually paying for Russian info and actually using it* against Trump. I’ve heard them all so I won’t bother with it.

Junior obtained no information so you’re trying to assign value to something that doesn’t even exist. Also, even granting merit to your *specious* information argument, no one, but Junior Trump, knew what he was going to do with the information assuming he acquired any.

And you just conceded everything would have been fine had he gone to the authorities with it. Your task would be to convince a jury you could read the future and/Junior’s mind.

Good luck with that.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
I knew you’d make an excuse for the Dreamer lol.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.

Just like you’ll make excuses for the DNC *actually paying for Russian info and actually using it*
Click to expand...

What's funny about conservatives is how they so often build the defeat of their arguments right into those arguments. OBVIOUSLY, the problem would by if they DIDN'T pay for the valuable information. Then the information would be a campaign donation.

Think it through. Let's say there's a law limiting individual contributions to a campaign to $2000 and you're running for office. And say I sell buttons and you pay me $5000 for $5000 worth of campaign buttons. Did I violate the campaign law? Of course not. I was compensated at fair market value for what I sold to the campaign, therefore it wasn't a donation and isn't covered by laws dealing with campaign donations. But say, instead, I handed you $5000 of campaign buttons for free, and even expressly said it was as part of my effort to get you elected. Now, have I violated campaign finance law? Of course I have. It's a donation in kind that exceeds the dollar amount.

And, no, the analysis is no different if it's information. If you offer to pay me $5000 for a report on the social media haunts of undecided voters, so you can target your ads better, and that's a reasonable market rate for that kind of work, then my giving you that information in exchange for the money is not a campaign finance violation, because I've donated nothing. But if I give you a report that would have cost you about $5000 to develop on your own, and I've expressly told you that it's part of my effort to get you elected, and I charge you nothing, then of course it's a campaign finance violation.

Junior obtained no information
Click to expand...

Under campaign finance law, he didn't need to. He merely needed to solicit it. As soon as he agreed to a meeting to get that valuable donation of information, he committed a crime.

so you’re trying to assign value to something that doesn’t even exist
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to exist for soliciting it to be against the law. If I'm a campaign manager and I reach out to the Ayatollah and ask for him to organize a massive social media campaign against the opponent, to help my guy get elected, I've broken the law, by soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national for a campaign. It doesn't matter that the social media campaign doesn't exist at the time I solicit it.

Also, even granting merit to your *specious* information argument, no one, but Junior Trump, knew what he was going to do with the information assuming he acquired any.
Click to expand...

He can try to offer the defense that he was just trying to conduct a private sting operation and was going to turn the information over to authorities. In the same sense, someone who is arrested soliciting illegal drugs can claim he was just trying to help out authorities and would have turned the drugs in if he'd gotten them. Or a John can claim that when he picked up a hooker he was planning to take her back to his hotel room to try to explain to her the error of her ways. A jury is welcome to consider that and decide if it's plausible. But step one is indictment, and it should be the same with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. Considering soliciting the information, itself, was a crime, with no need to prove what the person intended to do with it, you'd be hard pressed to convince a jury to nullify the law in that case.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
You’re headed down a slippery slope by assigning ‘value’ to information sharing in a campaign.

Say a Dreamer shares ‘valuable information’ about the border with a democrat during a campaign. Are you prepared to prosecute the democrat for a campaign violation? Somehow, I think not.

And your private plane analogy is amiss: planes have an obvious value as transportation. A foreigner donating office space would be an obvious violation. Information about Hillary’s dealings with the Russians, not so much. In fact, had Junior gone straight to the FBI with it—they would have thanked him and not charged him with anything.

The Trump Tower meeting is a Nothing Burger.
Click to expand...

You poor, poor bastards.

No one should ever have to torture logic and reason the way you guys have to do...to defend your political god.

But I gotta acknowledge that it is fun to watch.


images
 
Oneuli said:
It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.



What's funny about conservatives is how they so often build the defeat of their arguments right into those arguments. OBVIOUSLY, the problem would by if they DIDN'T pay for the valuable information. Then the information would be a campaign donation.

Think it through. Let's say there's a law limiting individual contributions to a campaign to $2000 and you're running for office. And say I sell buttons and you pay me $5000 for $5000 worth of campaign buttons. Did I violate the campaign law? Of course not. I was compensated at fair market value for what I sold to the campaign, therefore it wasn't a donation and isn't covered by laws dealing with campaign donations. But say, instead, I handed you $5000 of campaign buttons for free, and even expressly said it was as part of my effort to get you elected. Now, have I violated campaign finance law? Of course I have. It's a donation in kind that exceeds the dollar amount.

And, no, the analysis is no different if it's information. If you offer to pay me $5000 for a report on the social media haunts of undecided voters, so you can target your ads better, and that's a reasonable market rate for that kind of work, then my giving you that information in exchange for the money is not a campaign finance violation, because I've donated nothing. But if I give you a report that would have cost you about $5000 to develop on your own, and I've expressly told you that it's part of my effort to get you elected, and I charge you nothing, then of course it's a campaign finance violation.



Under campaign finance law, he didn't need to. He merely needed to solicit it. As soon as he agreed to a meeting to get that valuable donation of information, he committed a crime.



It doesn't need to exist for soliciting it to be against the law. If I'm a campaign manager and I reach out to the Ayatollah and ask for him to organize a massive social media campaign against the opponent, to help my guy get elected, I've broken the law, by soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national for a campaign. It doesn't matter that the social media campaign doesn't exist at the time I solicit it.



He can try to offer the defense that he was just trying to conduct a private sting operation and was going to turn the information over to authorities. In the same sense, someone who is arrested soliciting illegal drugs can claim he was just trying to help out authorities and would have turned the drugs in if he'd gotten them. Or a John can claim that when he picked up a hooker he was planning to take her back to his hotel room to try to explain to her the error of her ways. A jury is welcome to consider that and decide if it's plausible. But step one is indictment, and it should be the same with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. Considering soliciting the information, itself, was a crime, with no need to prove what the person intended to do with it, you'd be hard pressed to convince a jury to nullify the law in that case.
Click to expand...

Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.

What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!! Plausible innocence equals reasonable doubt. You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.

Game, set and match.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.
Click to expand...

They broke the law. Of course I want them indicted for it. Nobody should be above the law. That has nothing to do with impeachment, though.... at this point, we have no evidence that Donald Trump was complicit in the Trump Tower meeting. It's about the criminal conduct of Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner.

What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!!
Click to expand...

And when, as in the case of Don Jr.'s breaking of campaign finance laws, the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what do juries do? They rule *guilty*.

You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.
Click to expand...

Have you considered taking an adult education class, just to bring your reading skills up to, say, a sixth-grade level? It's frustrating to try to debate with you, because you simply lack the skills to understand written English text.
 
Oneuli said:
They broke the law. Of course I want them indicted for it. Nobody should be above the law. That has nothing to do with impeachment, though.... at this point, we have no evidence that Donald Trump was complicit in the Trump Tower meeting. It's about the criminal conduct of Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner.



And when, as in the case of Don Jr.'s breaking of campaign finance laws, the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, what do juries do? They rule *guilty*.



Have you considered taking an adult education class, just to bring your reading skills up to, say, a sixth-grade level? It's frustrating to try to debate with you, because you simply lack the skills to understand written English text.
Click to expand...

Right lol.

It’s entirely plausible that Junior was going to go to the authorities with whatever the Russian lawyer had. In fact, had it involved national security it would be a slam dunk. That’s all any defense attorney would have to establish. And as long as it’s plausibe—there’s your reasonable doubt.

But since there’s no evidence that anything was obtained—the whole fricking thing is academic, anyway.

And here’s another factor: Junior Trump isn’t General Flynn. Mullet won’t be able to bankrupt Junior to force a guilty plea. I’ll be very suprised if Mullet barks up that tree—contrary to whatever the lawyers on CNN are saying.

You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance law. Information with respect to cyber crime is a different animal. China, for example, steals information from us all the time. But the term for that is ‘intellectual property’. Stealing that kind of information constitutes theft.

Simply hearing what the Russian had to say is not a crime. It just isn’t. No matter how you spin it.
 
Oneuli said:
As we established, my definition (the dictionary definition) fits what happened at the Trump Tower.
Click to expand...

we have established no such thing.....in fact I recall every one with a rational mind laughed at you for thinking it had......

do you have another definition besides the one in #200?......
 
Oneuli said:
It wasn't an excuse -- I was pointing out the ways that your hypothetical varied from what we're discussing.



What's funny about conservatives is how they so often build the defeat of their arguments right into those arguments. OBVIOUSLY, the problem would by if they DIDN'T pay for the valuable information. Then the information would be a campaign donation.

Think it through. Let's say there's a law limiting individual contributions to a campaign to $2000 and you're running for office. And say I sell buttons and you pay me $5000 for $5000 worth of campaign buttons. Did I violate the campaign law? Of course not. I was compensated at fair market value for what I sold to the campaign, therefore it wasn't a donation and isn't covered by laws dealing with campaign donations. But say, instead, I handed you $5000 of campaign buttons for free, and even expressly said it was as part of my effort to get you elected. Now, have I violated campaign finance law? Of course I have. It's a donation in kind that exceeds the dollar amount.

And, no, the analysis is no different if it's information. If you offer to pay me $5000 for a report on the social media haunts of undecided voters, so you can target your ads better, and that's a reasonable market rate for that kind of work, then my giving you that information in exchange for the money is not a campaign finance violation, because I've donated nothing. But if I give you a report that would have cost you about $5000 to develop on your own, and I've expressly told you that it's part of my effort to get you elected, and I charge you nothing, then of course it's a campaign finance violation.



Under campaign finance law, he didn't need to. He merely needed to solicit it. As soon as he agreed to a meeting to get that valuable donation of information, he committed a crime.



It doesn't need to exist for soliciting it to be against the law. If I'm a campaign manager and I reach out to the Ayatollah and ask for him to organize a massive social media campaign against the opponent, to help my guy get elected, I've broken the law, by soliciting a thing of value from a foreign national for a campaign. It doesn't matter that the social media campaign doesn't exist at the time I solicit it.



He can try to offer the defense that he was just trying to conduct a private sting operation and was going to turn the information over to authorities. In the same sense, someone who is arrested soliciting illegal drugs can claim he was just trying to help out authorities and would have turned the drugs in if he'd gotten them. Or a John can claim that when he picked up a hooker he was planning to take her back to his hotel room to try to explain to her the error of her ways. A jury is welcome to consider that and decide if it's plausible. But step one is indictment, and it should be the same with Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort. Considering soliciting the information, itself, was a crime, with no need to prove what the person intended to do with it, you'd be hard pressed to convince a jury to nullify the law in that case.
Click to expand...

so in summary, no solicitation, no conspiracy, no collusion, no campaign violations, nothing illegal......
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Admit it, you’d be happy with an indictment even if it didn’t stand up in court—because this is about impeachment and removal from office.

What do juries do with plausible innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial lol? If they’ve been properly instructed—they rule *innocent*!! Plausible innocence equals reasonable doubt. You just admitted to the class that the only reason Mullet would indict Junior would be to hang an indictment on someone named Trump.

Game, set and match.
Click to expand...

Hey, dumbfuck. It’s not “innocent”. It’s either guilty or not guilty.

If and when Mueller indicts Junior, it’s because the evidence is there. Just like all the rest.

Tick Tock
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Right lol.

It’s entirely plausible that Junior was going to go to the authorities with whatever the Russian lawyer had. In fact, had it involved national security it would be a slam dunk. That’s all any defense attorney would have to establish. And as long as it’s plausibe—there’s your reasonable doubt.

But since there’s no evidence that anything was obtained—the whole fricking thing is academic, anyway.

And here’s another factor: Junior Trump isn’t General Flynn. Mullet won’t be able to bankrupt Junior to force a guilty plea. I’ll be very suprised if Mullet barks up that tree—contrary to whatever the lawyers on CNN are saying.

You’re stuck on information having a value with respect to campaign finance law. Information with respect to cyber crime is a different animal. China, for example, steals information from us all the time. But the term for that is ‘intellectual property’. Stealing that kind of information constitutes theft.

Simply hearing what the Russian had to say is not a crime. It just isn’t. No matter how you spin it.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

You Trumptards have difficulty with English. In this case, the word “solicit” totally escapes you.
 
"Yesterday was a big day in Washington. As newly-elected members of Congress were sworn in, control of the House of Representatives flipped from Republican to Democrat.

While this is usually a run-of-the-mill process, a lot of things happened yesterday that should concern anyone who cherishes American values and who was hoping for compromise from the new Congress.
· Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refused to take her oath of office on the Bible. Instead she used a law book. I don't know which law book, but I do know this: Long after the senator and whatever book she took her oath on are gone, the word of God will endure.
· Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took her oath on what she called "Jefferson's Koran." She said, "Some of our Founding Fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now." Obviously she doesn't know very much. Jefferson got a translation of the Koran so he could understand the Islamic Barbary Pirates against whom he would later, as president, wage war. Thus the phrase, "To the shores of Tripoli" in the Marines' Hymn But she is probably right -- the Founders understood what many elites today do not: Radical Islam is a deadly threat to freedom.
· Unfortunately, Tlaib wasn't done. She later went to a reception sponsored by the radical group MoveOn.org. Referring to a conversation she had with her young son about her election, Rep. Tlaib declared, "We're gonna go in there and impeach the motherf---er.'"
· And there's more. The world map on the wall in Rep. Tlaib's office had a Post-It note on it labeled "Palestine" over the state of Israel.
· Rep. Tlaib is not the only newly elected member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) lied to her constituents about her support for efforts to boycott and sanction Israel. The election of these two Muslim women, along with socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY), has been hailed by cultural and media elites as "the wave of the future." Just to be clear, they are celebrating the victory of anti-Semites. Some future.
· Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) posted the transgender flag outside of her office. (Yes, they have a flag.)
· Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
· Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
· Not to be out done, Nancy Pelosi made history herself by becoming the first woman to become Speaker of the House twice. And the first bill she pushed through the House late last night was an appropriation bill that gave an additional $12 billion in foreign aid to multiple countries and provided more money to promote abortions overseas, but did not provide one dime for better border security to protect American citizens.
And that, my friends, was just Day One of the new Democrat House!"
 
Earl said:
"Yesterday was a big day in Washington. As newly-elected members of Congress were sworn in, control of the House of Representatives flipped from Republican to Democrat.

While this is usually a run-of-the-mill process, a lot of things happened yesterday that should concern anyone who cherishes American values and who was hoping for compromise from the new Congress.
· Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refused to take her oath of office on the Bible. Instead she used a law book. I don't know which law book, but I do know this: Long after the senator and whatever book she took her oath on are gone, the word of God will endure.
· Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took her oath on what she called "Jefferson's Koran." She said, "Some of our Founding Fathers knew more about Islam than some members of Congress now." Obviously she doesn't know very much. Jefferson got a translation of the Koran so he could understand the Islamic Barbary Pirates against whom he would later, as president, wage war. Thus the phrase, "To the shores of Tripoli" in the Marines' Hymn But she is probably right -- the Founders understood what many elites today do not: Radical Islam is a deadly threat to freedom.
· Unfortunately, Tlaib wasn't done. She later went to a reception sponsored by the radical group MoveOn.org. Referring to a conversation she had with her young son about her election, Rep. Tlaib declared, "We're gonna go in there and impeach the motherf---er.'"
· And there's more. The world map on the wall in Rep. Tlaib's office had a Post-It note on it labeled "Palestine" over the state of Israel.
· Rep. Tlaib is not the only newly elected member of Congress who is hostile to Israel. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) lied to her constituents about her support for efforts to boycott and sanction Israel. The election of these two Muslim women, along with socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY), has been hailed by cultural and media elites as "the wave of the future." Just to be clear, they are celebrating the victory of anti-Semites. Some future.
· Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) posted the transgender flag outside of her office. (Yes, they have a flag.)
· Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
· Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced articles of impeachment against President Trump.
· Not to be out done, Nancy Pelosi made history herself by becoming the first woman to become Speaker of the House twice. And the first bill she pushed through the House late last night was an appropriation bill that gave an additional $12 billion in foreign aid to multiple countries and provided more money to promote abortions overseas, but did not provide one dime for better border security to protect American citizens.
And that, my friends, was just Day One of the new Democrat House!"
Click to expand...

Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

It was an E-Mail and I don't expose people who E-Mail me.

See the quotation marks, old timer?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Not sure where you copied this from...but you really should have done an attribution.

Of course, an asshole like you might consider that to be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I could have called you a pendejo or a cabrn...I could have but I didn't.

Self-discipline, moderation. You should have learned these after 82 YEARS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top