What is the difference between Trump saying he'd accept foreign information

StoneByStone said:
And five hours after he said that extremely irresponsible "joke," Russia actually hacked Hillary's server.
Now Trump is saying to Russia, if you want to help me win again, I will work with you.
After all this time screaming about how there was "no collusion," Trump is now saying he will collude. Imagine if it was Obama doing this.
Click to expand...

You mean the server .... in her bathroom ?
 
Stretch said:
Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The facts have been out there for a long while. This is all about RUSSIANS, not an American Party.
She herself said that she and her lawyers and the DNC paid for foreign info.
Click to expand...

She did? Let’s see the link.
 
Darth Omar said:
Right: the only difference is the firewalls.

If they want to argue that makes it legal, fine. But you’re either against foreign influence in our political system or you’re not. IOW, in accepting Hillary’s shenanigans with Fusion/Steele/Russians/Dossier, democrats and their Media minions are unable to make a *principled* objection to what the Trump campaign WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF.

But they are shameless hypocrites, so they do it anyway.
Click to expand...

Again, you illiterate dumbfuck. NOT “in other words.”

Quit making up lies.
 
Stretch said:
Then put Hillary in jail.
Click to expand...

Illiterate cunt.

“While it is illegal to accept contributions from foreign nationals for political campaigns (as Trump suggested he would do), “paying a foreign national fair market value for opposition research is generally not illegal,” as former chief counsel for the Federal Election Commission Lawrence Noble told The Washington Post. “It is considered a commercial transaction, which is not a contribution.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...t-from-foreign-governments-in-the-2020/223924
 
Stretch said:
Do you think Trump is wrong to think incoming oppo info should be heard and then determine if it's useful and accurate?
Click to expand...

Of course not lol.

Back when Meeting Gate was ‘it finally’, I tried to explain to these goof balls that a crime could only *follow* the meeting. You can’t charge someone with a crime for simply taking a meeting. Free association, and all that fundamental stuff of freedom.

And sure enough, Mullet proved me right.
 
archives said:
on political rivals last Wednesday and Trump directly asking Russia to find Clinton's Emails back in 2016?

Actually not much of a difference, except this time Trump is putting the request right out there, sending a public invitation to all his autocratic buddies, openly inviting foreign powers to interfere in our election for his behalf

And why not, Trump cares little for respecting historical institutions, he knows his GOP lackeys don't have the backbone to say anything, he's assured billy Barr ain't going to care, and he has a whole media network that will not only defend him but will quickly portray any effort to expose say North Korea's involvement as a witch hunt

The Democrats ought to immediately pass legislation making it illegal to accept any kind of assistence from any foreign nation in our elections and quickly forward it to Mitch, put the Senate invertebrates on the spot
Click to expand...

Ask yourself what the difference is when you understand that the Clinton campaign payed a foreign interest to look into her opponent and then that same report they paid for, for campaign use, was later used, after their loss, to gain warrants against the same...

If it is legal to pay a foreign interest to look into your opponent and then accept the "dirt" they give you, why is it different if you simply go into a meeting and listen to something? How is it better when you directly ask a foreign interest to seek out "information" (read lies)?

The hypocrisy of the left on this position is not just astounding, it is direct, unabashed, in your face, do as we say rhetoric.
 
Stretch said:
Do you think Trump is wrong to think incoming oppo info should be heard and then determine if it's useful and accurate?
Click to expand...

Yes. He is wrong.

I think that if a candidate is contacted by a foreign party purporting to have adverse info on that candidate's opponent, that he/she needs to refuse it. It would be the candidates' aides, of course, who would first be contacted. They should be instructed to gather all personal identifying info they can, inform the candidate, then it should be turned over to our intelligence agencies. It doesn't matter whether the info is true or not. What matters is the attempt by an outside foreign agency/country to influence our elections.

I'm puzzled as to why you think this should not be questioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top