Merged All things Trump + Russia

[skyeagle409]

There has been zero evidence presented of collusion.

As of now, the only evidence presented is that Trump Jr went to meet with someone who was not an official of the Russian government expecting to obtain official information from the Russian government that could incriminate Hillary. Both parties have stated they did not exchange any information. regarding Hillary.

You don't know that. Trump Jr. lied and lied again and what he had done was illegal because he sought to collude with the Russian government.

That's enough evidence for impeachment for some people. For me, I'll wait for some actual evidence before I start demanding show trials.

Truimp has proven that he is unfit and incompetent to run the country.

 

[johnny karate]

Not sure. Because that's what was discussed?

So was Clinton, which is the whole reason Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting.

It's called "lying by omission".

 

[Bogative]

The emails of Trump Jr. says it all. He acted illegally and sought to collude with the government of Russia and never reported his contact to the FBI.

The bolded is a lie.

There is no evidence of Trump's son and campaign representatives having discussed any information from the Russian government.

 

[skyeagle409]

Not sure. Because that's what was discussed?

That is a cover because according to his email, he went to the meeting due to negative information the Russian government had on Hillary Clinton. Nothing there about adoptions.

 

[NoahFence]

The bolded is a lie.

There is no evidence of Trump's son and campaign representatives having discussed any information from the Russian government.

Whatever makes you sleep.

 

[Shalamar]

Party over country. if it was Hillary and/or her staff that had done this or suspected to do these things, the 'right' would be demanding her head.

 

[skyeagle409]

The bolded is a lie.

There is no evidence of Trump's son and campaign representatives having discussed any information from the Russian government.

I have dealt with the Russians before and when they invited me aboard their warship years ago, I knew what to do because I was a government employee and reported my contact to the Air Force OSI, where I was debriefed, so don't sit at your keyboard and think that I don't know what I am talking about.

 

[Belz...]

There has been zero evidence presented of collusion.

It seems like evidence of collusion is physically impossible, to read posts from you guys. What the hell would you even consider to be evidence of collusion -- say, if we were talking about Hillary Clinton?

 

[NoahFence]

Party over country. if it was Hillary and/or her staff that had done this or suspected to do these things, the 'right' would be demanding her head.

So would a lot on the left, and pretty much all of the center.

(Which is actually the majority of the country)

 

[Belz...]

That circles me right back to my earlier claim that your statement (below) is a false dichotomy

I'm getting a lot of mileage from that facetious statement, aren't I?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's an interesting piece to get out of the nu-uh/un-huh rut there.

Who exactly leaked Trump Jr. emails story to The New York Times?

It's speculative, but has potential motives and rebuttals on a these 5 suspects.

Corey Lewandowski
Jared Kushner
Stephen Bannon
The Russians (my favorite)
Mike Pence (a devious thought)​

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm getting a lot of mileage from that facetious statement, aren't I?

It's only been a couple of exchanges.

 

[Bogative]

Just like the DEA desperately wants to arrest people who don't buy actual drugs from people who turn out not to be actual drug dealers.

The DEA would never stoop so low as to arrest someone for admitting they were planning on partaking in drug use without evidence of drug use or drugs.

 

[dudalb]

The bolded is a lie.

There is no evidence of Trump's son and campaign representatives having discussed any information from the Russian government.

I think it is clear nothing will shake your faith in Dear Leader.

 

[Bogative]

It seems like evidence of collusion is physically impossible, to read posts from you guys. What the hell would you even consider to be evidence of collusion -- say, if we were talking about Hillary Clinton?

Actual evidence. Not the desperate desire for it to be because I really, really, really dislike Hillary.

"Russia" has surpassed Republicans and "Benghazi." it's hysteria on a mass scale.

 

[quadraginta]

Why, with those additions it rather seems like there is evidence for collusion conspiracy, doesn't it. Wonder why they were left out.

Please. Let us try to be accurate.

And also to take it easier on Ziggurat. "Collusion" seems to be some sort of trigger word for him.

 

[Cain]

Trump could grant Russia authorization to bomb Fifth Avenue and people would still vote for him.

 

[quadraginta]

Thanks for the ads, I'll re-summarize.

Some people desperately want to impeach continue to pursue an investigation of Donald Trump's campaign because his campaign officials and son did not tried to receive information from a "hostile" power via a citizen with no proven they believed to have links to the government of said hostile power.

That version needed a few corrections too.

 

[quadraginta]

Trump could grant Russia authorization to bomb Fifth Avenue and people would still vote for him.

He'd probably do it for them if they asked nicely.

(And bought enough property from him.)

 

[I Am The Scum]

I Am The Scum already posted the text of the law. And I already responded. If you read "thing of value" as including speech, then you've criminalized speech, and I don't see how that can possibly survive 1st amendment scrutiny.

I think I see what the problem is. You seem to be operating under a notion of "free speech absolutism" as it applies to the law. In other words: If the action is speech, and nothing else, then it cannot possibly be illegal. This is pretty clearly false, and there are a number of ways to show it.

First, let's go back to the original text of the law:

It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Under the plainest reading of this section of the law, it is illegal to simply ask a foreign national for a campaign contribution. I am unaware of any serious legal argument, on first amendment grounds, against this application. If you have one in your back pocket, then please share it with the rest of the class. To the best of my knowledge, my interpretation is both commonplace and completely uncontroversial.

But even ignoring this specific issue, we can defer to a number of crimes that typically amount to nothing more than pure speech. Here are some examples that I cam up with right off the top of my head:

* Conspiracy
* Perjury
* Extortion
* Threats and harassment
* TV/VCR repair
* Obstruction of justice

If this is "criminalizing speech," then our entire judicial system, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has severely screwed up the First Amendment. I just don't think that's the case.