'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

  
Via:  tessylo  •  4 months ago  •  272 comments

'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents









7697f500-e3fd-11e6-ac84-796263f06e57_GMA   LUCIEN BRUGGEMAN, Good Morning America   51 minutes ago  


UP NEXT















Trump on whether Don Jr. should have reported Russia email to FBI: 'Give me a break'















'I think I’d take it': In exclusive interview, Trump says he would listen if foreigners offered dirt on opponents   originally appeared on   abcnews.go.com

President   Donald Trump   may not alert the FBI if foreign governments offered damaging information against his 2020 rivals during the upcoming presidential race, he said, despite the deluge of investigations stemming from his campaign's interactions with Russians during the 2016 campaign.

Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners -- such as China or Russia -- or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, "I think maybe you do both."

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

(MORE: EXCLUSIVE: Trump reveals historic redesign of Air Force One)

President Trump made the remark during an exclusive interview with ABC News over the course of two days, wherein Stephanopoulos joined the president on a visit to Iowa and back to Washington for a day inside the White House.

donald-trump-george-stephanopoulos-bugge

Trump disputed the idea that if a foreign government provided information on a political opponent, it would be considered interference in our election process.

(MORE: Mueller report highlights: Read the top moments from the 448-page report)

"It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it," Trump said. "If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research."

President Trump lamented the attention on his son, Donald Trump Jr., for his role in the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting in June 2016. Stephanopoulos asked whether Trump Jr. should have taken the Russians' offer for "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton to the FBI.

(MORE: After Mueller report exposed Russian interference 'roadmap,' is US ready for 2020?)

"Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,' do you call the FBI?" Trump responded.

"I'll tell you what, I've seen a lot of things over my life. I don't think in my whole life I've ever called the FBI. In my whole life. You don't call the FBI. You throw somebody out of your office, you do whatever you do," Trump continued. "Oh, give me a break – life doesn't work that way."

(MORE: A Mueller report guide to collusion: What is it and what could we still learn?)

"The FBI director said that is what should happen," Stephanopoulos replied, referring to comments FBI Director Christopher Wray made during congressional testimony last month, when he told lawmakers "the FBI would want to know about" any foreign election meddling.

But on Wednesday, the president refuted Wray's sentiment.

(MORE: President denies knowing about Trump Tower meeting with Russians, despite Michael Cohen's claim)

"The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life," Trump said. "Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you'd think differently."

Tune in next week for an hour-long ABC News special, only on ABC — including "ABC News Live," the 24/7 streaming news channel available on abcnews.com, Roku, Hulu, Amazon Fire TV and Apple TV.








Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

Of course he would!  The shitstain did it before and he will do it again.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 months ago

Looking at the history of what Democrats have done trying to dig up dirt on their opponents, crying about a time honored political ploy practiced by both parties is laughable.

It is not against the law for foreign governments to try to influence the outcomes of other countries elections. Just look at all those foreign donors into Hillary's "Foundation"! The Obama administration openly and blatantly tried to influence the election in Israel.

What good would telling the FBI do, since from all appearances, that agency was doing the best that IT could to influence the election in favor of Hillary.

There is no real evidence that the Russians actually and really interfered in the 2016 election, although some claim they did. Dirtbag Hillary lost because she was a corrupt and nasty old bitch.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago

The Clinton foundation is not a pay to play or scam like any/all of the Rump's crime family syndicates.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
There is no real evidence that the Russians actually and really interfered in the 2016 election

What is "What a Russian Bot would say?"...

It really is amazing to me what kind of bullshit some people are willing to believe in an effort to support this piece of filth commander in-competent.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
crying about a time honored political ploy practiced by both parties is laughable.

Once again Greg I am asking for links proving that accepting election assistance from foreign countries is a common occurrence.

Now, based on historical evidence, I am expecting 1 of 2 possible responses from you:

  1. You will never respond.
  2. You will claim that I need to look for myself. (Which I have done and found nothing)

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    4 months ago

'What is "What a Russian Bot would say?"...

I think they've infiltrated Newstalkers.  The obvious suspects that is.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    4 months ago

Prove it!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    4 months ago

Do you really, honestly, think that all those "donations" coming to Hillary from foreign individuals and governments went directly into her "foundation"?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    4 months ago

'Once again Greg I am asking for links proving that accepting election assistance from foreign countries is a common occurrence.

Now, based on historical evidence, I am expecting 1 of 2 possible responses from you:

  1. You will never respond.
  2. You will claim that I need to look for myself. (Which I have done and found nothing)'

or 3.  Prove it!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    4 months ago

I would not doubt it. They have infiltrated most every other type of media and sites on the Internet and NT would not be alone if indeed they were here. Money rules, and makes the sheeple drool. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
There is no real evidence that the Russians actually and really interfered in the 2016 election

Mueller report stated clearly that they did. 99% of the members of congress says they did. All of our intel agencies said that they did. Literally the only person that says they DIDN'T is trump. If you are taking trumps words over all these other people, I seriously, no joke, feel sorry for you

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.9    4 months ago

But you can never say just how they interfered. Influencing opinion is not anywhere close to interfering.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
Just look at all those foreign donors into Hillary's "Foundation"!

The Clinton Foundation.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

This organization has earned a GuideStar's Platinum Seal of Transparency by voluntarily sharing the measures of progress and results they use to pursue their mission. Organizations earn Platinum Seals by selecting from a catalog of over 900 expert recognized metrics or by creating a new metric that best fits their work. This information is reported by the organization and displayed publicly on their GuideStar Nonprofit Profile. With over 1.6 million Nonprofit Profiles, 9 million annual visitors and over 200 data partners, GuideStar is the world's leading source of information about nonprofit organizations. A nonprofit itself, GuideStar is dedicated to providing better data for better decisions for a better world.

It's an A+ rated charity, Greg.. Maybe time to get off the fake news right wing web sites.

The Trump Foundation. 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16764

On September 13, 2016, The New York Times reported on the operations of Donald J. Trump Foundation, a charity that has announced intentions to dissolve, in an article titled, "New York Attorney General to Investigate Donald Trump’s Nonprofit." For this reason, we have issued a   High Concern CN Advisory . For more information, please see   The New York Times   article.

  • On November 22, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Trump Foundation admits to violating ban on 'self-dealing,' new filing to IRS shows." For more information, please see   The Washington Post   article.

  • On December 24, 2016, The Trump-Pence Transition Team issued a press release titled, "President-Elect Donald J. Trump Intends to Dissolve the Donald J. Trump Foundation." For more information, please see   The Trump-Pence Transition Team   press release.

  • On December 24, 2016, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Donald Trump plans to shut down his charitable foundation, which has been under scrutiny for months." For more information, please see   The Washington Post   article.

  • On November 20, 2017, The Washington Post published an article titled, "Trump golf course reimbursed President Trump’s charity amid ongoing investigation into the foundation." For more information, please see   The Washington Post   article.

  • On November 21, 2017, TIME published an article titled, "President Trump Is Officially Dissolving His Charitable Foundation." For more information, please see the   TIME   article.

  • On June 14, 2018, the New York State Office of the Attorney General issued a press release titled, "Attorney General Underwood Announces Lawsuit Against Donald J. Trump Foundation And Its Board Of Directors For Extensive And Persistent Violations Of State And Federal Law." For more information, please see the   New York State Office of the Attorney General   press release.

  • On August 22, 2018, CNN published an article titled, "New York tax investigators subpoena Michael Cohen in Trump Foundation probe." For more information, please see the   CNN   article.

  • On August 31, 2018, PBS News Hour published an article titled, "New York’s attorney general says Trump Foundation bankrolled political campaign, pursues lawsuit." For more information, please see the   PBS News Hour   article.

  • On October 4, 2018, NPR published an article titled, "New York AG Presses Forward With Suit Against Trump's Charitable Foundation." For more information, please see the   NPR   article.

  • On October 25, 2018, The Star published an article titled, "No one wanted Trump’s portrait. So his charity had to buy it for $10,000, lawyer says." For more information, please see   The Star   article.

  • On November 23, 2018, The New York Times published an article titled, "New York State’s Lawsuit Against Trump Foundation Can Proceed, Judge Rules." For more information, please see   The New York Times   article.

  • On December 18, 2018, CNN published an article titled, "Trump Foundation agrees to dissolve under court supervision." For more information, please see the   CNN   article.

  • On February 11, 2019, CNN published an article titled, "Trump Foundation says NY AG's comments show lawsuit is political." For more information, please see the   CNN   article.

  • On February 27, 2019, CNN published an article titled, "Michael Cohen testifies that Trump paid for portrait with Trump Foundation funds." For more information, please see   CNN   article.

  • On March 14, 2019, The Washington Post published an article titled, "NY attorney general: Evidence shows Trump misused charity." For more information, please see   The Washington Post article.

  • On May 19, 2019, The New York Times published an article titled, "Deutsche Bank Staff Saw Suspicious Activity in Trump and Kushner Accounts." For more information, please see   The New York Times   article.

You can't even donate to trumps "charity" because it's been shut down for FRAUD, (shocking....said no one ever.

...

In essence greg, you are calling the Clinton foundation what the trump foundation actually is. FRAUD. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.7    4 months ago
'Once again Greg I am asking for links proving that accepting election assistance from foreign countries is a common occurrence.

Now, based on historical evidence, I am expecting 1 of 2 possible responses from you:

  1. You will never respond.
  2. You will claim that I need to look for myself. (Which I have done and found nothing)'

or 3.  Prove it!

or 4. Deflection!  (i.e. But Hillary!)

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.10    4 months ago
But you can never say just how they interfered.

One way we know for sure, was deceptive ads on FB. 

Influencing opinion is not anywhere close to interfering.

How much do big business's spend on advertising? Billions... If influencing an opinion has no effect, why would they spend so much money on trying to do so? 

Weird huh? 

Either way, it's not everyone else that is wrong, it's trump, and he has a motive to lie about it. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.14  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    4 months ago

What donations.  Again all you do is make up comments which are nothing but trolling or taunting

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.15  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.10    4 months ago

More make believe on your part

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.16  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    4 months ago
Do you really, honestly, think that all those "donations" coming to Hillary from foreign individuals and governments went directly into her "foundation"?

Greg, both Donald Trump and his son Eric were forced to suspend and close their respective foundations for suspicion of influence peddling and other questionable donation practices.  

Donald Trump used his foundation to pay off personal civil suits. The one thing that burned my butt was when he used $30,000 of his foundation's money to purchase 6-foot-tall painting of himself, which he then hung in the lobby of Trump Tower.  He also used foundation money to purchase tens of thousands of dollars in sports memorabilia.  There are reputable accounts of foundation shenanigans all over the internet.  I'm surprised that you are so unaware of them.

On a different note, you are aware that Hillary Clinton can't hurt you any more...right?  It's a point you might want to ponder.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.1.18  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.17    4 months ago

Ok,  now that one was funny..  not your usual.  good one.  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago
Looking at the history of what Democrats have done trying to dig up dirt on their opponents, crying about a time honored political ploy practiced by both parties is laughable.

You get the 'early bird' star for first whataboutism HILLARY!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.16    4 months ago

The ultimate in irony is that Trump donated to the Clinton Foundation. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.21  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.6    4 months ago

HRC is as dirty as the day is long.  We all know it  and then you have a bunch of people that pretend that they never heard anything about it    Lotta money there that’s been  unaccounted for and you know where it went ultimately. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.22  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.17    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.21    4 months ago
HRC is as dirty as the day is long.  We all know it

By "we all" you mean all except for the FBI, Republican House Committee that investigated her, Justice Department, and every American that believes in the Constitution and rule of law?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.24  Heartland American  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago

Well said.  I completely agree. It’s Hillary and Obama who really were traitors to America. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1    4 months ago
The shitstain did it before and he will do it again. 

And when did he do it before?  Did I miss that in the witch hunt results?

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2    4 months ago
And when did he do it before?

As has been stated several times already, as well as being widely reported... The Mueller report said that while the trump campaign did not seek out help from russia, it did accept help from russia when it was offered, (which is a felony). 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.1    4 months ago

Yeah.  Ok

 
 
 
lady in black
2  lady in black    4 months ago

And deporables will defend this POS 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @2    4 months ago

Yes, see below.  

 
 
 
katrix
2.2  katrix  replied to  lady in black @2    4 months ago

It amazes me that people who pretend to be patriots support Trump welcoming foreign interference in our elections. 

Until Trump got elected, I had no idea how many Americans despise our country and our constitution, and prefer idolatry of their orange hero to patriotism.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @2.2    4 months ago

40% or whatever the turd's approval rate is, is a frightening number.  

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.2.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  katrix @2.2    4 months ago

 What never surprises me anymore is it folks on the left accuse the bad orange man of doing precisely what they’ve been doing quite some time now.

 
 
 
MUVA
3  MUVA    4 months ago

I think he should. He should also hire a law to PAY a foreign national to get the opposition research wait that is what shit stain Hillary did.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3    4 months ago

How moronic.  No, she didn't.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @3.1    4 months ago

You'll never admit she's a corrupt old bitch, will you?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 months ago
You'll never admit she's a corrupt old bitch, will you?

Until someone actually shows me any evidence of such, I'll continue to believe she's a relatively harmless retired grandmother and ex-first lady. I prefer to get my facts from actual reliable sources instead of alt-right memes and white supremacist or white nationalist websites like Stromfront and Breitbart. If you listen to them too much you might find yourself with an assault rifle at a pizza parlor demanding they open their basement so you can inspect it for Hillary's child sex dungeon.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 months ago

You'll never admit Rump is a corrupt old bitch, will you?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.1    4 months ago
You'll never admit she's a corrupt old bitch, will you?

What's Malaria trump got to do with this? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3    4 months ago

I think he should. He should also hire a law to PAY a foreign national to get the opposition research wait that is what shit stain Hillary did.  

Even if this was true...Steele is British...they are an ally... Russia, is NOT an ally, and trump accepted their help. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.3  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @3    4 months ago

a comment that is utter bullshit

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
3.4  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @3    4 months ago
He should also hire a law to PAY a foreign national to get the opposition research

I hope he does, dear.  I really, really hope he does. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
4  evilgenius    4 months ago

I have no problem with opposition research. It's another matter to deal in illegally obtained information like Jr and Kushner were looking for when they went to the Trump Tower meeting. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @4    4 months ago

If that was illegal why didn’t mueller charge them?

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    4 months ago
If that was illegal why didn’t mueller charge them?

As I said the information they were looking for was illegally obtained. Fortunately for Trump's family the Russians they talked didn't actually have that information. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    4 months ago

Plus it was not in his purview to bring charges for fucks sake. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    4 months ago
It was not in his purview to bring charges for fucks sake. 

He very well could have in that situation had something illegal actually have happened. Nothing did. Jr is now being accused of perjuring himself to Congress about that meeting. I don't know why he thought he would have to lie about, if he did. Unless he did think he had done something wrong...

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.3    4 months ago

Thanks for the heads up.  I didn't know that.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    4 months ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.1    4 months ago

what would be the crime? 

first, they were not told the promised information was “illegally obtained”

Second. newspapers publish illegally obtained material all the time. Why wasn’t roger stone charged by mueller with trying to obtain illegally obtained information? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    4 months ago

You have to remember this:

Hiring a company that hires foreign nationals to get dirt on your political opponent: perfectly fine if it is a GOP opponent.

Listening to a foreign national who might have dirt on your opponent: unacceptable if the dirt is on a Democrat.

See, you keep forgetting about that old double standard!

Shame on you!

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.8  Colour Me Free  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.3    4 months ago

Morning evilgenius

I thought Jr. was testifying to see if he perjured himself regarding Cohen having briefed him (like 10 times) on the Russia Trump Tower proposal that was being floated supposedly well into the president first year in office...?  

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.6    4 months ago
first, they were not told the promised information was “illegally obtained”

Joseph Mifsud told George Papadopoulos about hacked Clinton emails. Papadopoulos told Trump Sr and other campaign officials. Shortly after the guy that called Trump Jr saying a Russian lawyer had incriminating information on Clinton and wanted to meet. Spin it any way you want they thought they were getting hacked dirt.

Second. newspapers publish illegally obtained material all the time.

And sources have gone to jail for it. Many, many people have gone to jail for the possession of hacked information.

Why wasn’t roger stone charged by mueller with trying to obtain illegally obtained information? 

Apparently simply TRYING  isn't a crime.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.9    4 months ago
Joseph Mifsud told George Papadopoulos about hacked Clinton emails

Mifsud never mentioned emails. He testifed under oath that he didn't, and Mueller obviously didn't indict him.

Apparently simply TRYING  isn't a crime.

But it is. It would be a conspiracy to commit a crime even if they had ultimately failed to succeed. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
4.1.11  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.10    4 months ago
Mifsud never mentioned emails.

From the Mueller Report -

George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.

It would be a conspiracy to commit a crime even if they had ultimately failed to succeed. 

...our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    4 months ago
'You have zero idea what you are talking about. Please, please for the sake of comedy, provide your reasoning behind that statement.'
See 4.1.4.  Duh

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.13  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.8    4 months ago

Well you thought wrong, didn't you dear?

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.1.14  Colour Me Free  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.13    4 months ago

Nope, I did this crazy thing called research .. 

Have a nice day...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.1.15  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    4 months ago

What was his purview?

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.16  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.14    4 months ago

Don't let the door hit ya . . . 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  evilgenius @4.1.9    4 months ago
they were getting hacked dirt.

Accepting information, (or just about anything), gained through in illegal act, (like hacking), is a crime. I know you know that, but not sure about others. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.1.18  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.15    4 months ago

I'm not sure you even understand what "purview even means.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.1.14    4 months ago
Nope, I did this crazy thing called research ..

You stated a 'fact' that you garnered in your research as a question. Why? 

Oh and BTW, your research misses the mark. Trump signed a letter of intent with a Russian investment company to acquire property for 'Trump Tower Moscow' in Oct. 2015 WHILE he was running for POTUS and denying that he had any irons on the fire in Russia. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @4    4 months ago

It appears that the only thing illegally obtained were the FISA warrants.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    4 months ago

That same old same old fucking nonsense is so fucking tiresome.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    4 months ago
That same old same old fucking nonsense is so fucking tiresome. 

It's all he has.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.1    4 months ago

No, as AG Barr will explain to us before long. The FISA warrants were obtained with untrue and unverifiable informatiion. Being in perpetual denial doesn't change the truth.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2.3    4 months ago
No, as AG Barr will explain to us before long. The FISA warrants were obtained with untrue and unverifiable informatiion.

Didn't you say the same thing when Nunes' House committee was investigating them?  Do you think they changed between then and now?

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    4 months ago
It appears that the only thing illegally obtained were the FISA warrants.

Indictments? Charges? Prison sentences? Any proof at all from a source that ISN'T a trump surrogate? Nope. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
4.2.6  Don Overton  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    4 months ago

Another made up story of your fairy tales

 
 
 
JBB
5  JBB    4 months ago

At long last, has Trump no shame? No dignity? No decency?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.1  Raven Wing  replied to  JBB @5    4 months ago
At long last, has Trump no shame? No dignity? No decency?

Has he ever had any? His personal, business and political history indicates that he has never had any, and at this point, chance are he never will. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Watch the Clinton voters feign outrage at trump admitting he’d do what Clinton did.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1  Don Overton  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    4 months ago

More make believe from Sean 

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.2  Heartland American  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    4 months ago

Quite the scene to watch that... 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cms5
8  cms5    4 months ago

Let's see....Trump admits he'd listen to another country that says they have dirt about an opponent...everyone is aghast!

Hillary and DNC pay for dirt on Trump from another country...media and anti-Trumpers dance and cheer!

Nope...nothing to see here! LMAO

 
 
 
Jasper2529
8.1  Jasper2529  replied to  cms5 @8    4 months ago

Nailed it!  jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @8.1    4 months ago

No, she didn't.  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @8.1.2    4 months ago
Denial is not a river in Egypt.

To you, it seems to be given your denial that Russia tried to influence our election process, despite the mountains of evidence.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  cms5 @8    4 months ago
Let's see....Trump admits he'd listen to another country that says they have dirt about an opponent...everyone is aghast!

Non-allies of the USA, Russia and China? They are not our friends. 

Hillary and DNCpayfor dirt on Trump from another country...media and anti-Trumpers dance and cheer!

Allies of the USA, not enemies, like China and Russia. 

HUGE difference that you seem to have overlooked. 

 
 
 
cms5
8.2.1  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    4 months ago

I see, Steele was chosen by Fusion GPS because he was a 'good' guy who had contacts with Russian 'bad' guys...so that's far enough removed to 'overlook'. Got it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  cms5 @8.2.1    4 months ago

No, again, you don't got it!

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.3  Don Overton  replied to  cms5 @8    4 months ago

Where do you get these lies?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.4  Dulay  replied to  cms5 @8    4 months ago
Hillary and DNC pay for dirt on Trump from another country...media and anti-Trumpers dance and cheer!

Which brilliantly wasn't release until after the election. /s

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
9  bbl-1    4 months ago

Doesn't matter anymore.  China is setting up infrastructure and trade throughout the world.  Russia is ramping up its agriculture output for world trade.  Mission accomplished.

The "When you're a star you can do anything," president skates on solid ice.  He in invulnerable. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.1  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @9    4 months ago

 He in invulnerable.

Ya got that right....almost.

FOUR MORE YEARS   jrSmiley_49_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1    4 months ago

As the old saying goes, "Be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it." And it may not be what you thought you were getting. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Raven Wing @9.1.1    4 months ago
"Be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

Indeed. The white nationalist Germans were excited at the prospect of Hitler gaining power and showing the world German strength, see where that got them. The white nationalists here in America are doing the same having been seduced by Trumps promises of American greatness with the message white nationalists love to hear of "taking back" their supposed nation from those they see as "foreign invaders" who are really just new immigrants wanting the same thing those white nationalists ancestors did when they first came to these shores. It's rather sad to see such joy exhibited from such a vile worthless ideology as white nationalism being pursued and seemingly gaining ground.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.2    4 months ago

'Unlimited and unregulated immigration...bringing with it all kinds of unskilled people would end up being a drain on society, bringing with them heaven knows what kind of disease, vermin, and insects from parts unknown, and of course lots of criminals of all types including MS-13.'

Is that you Stephen Miller?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
9.1.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    4 months ago

Totally into conspiracy theories I see.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1    4 months ago
FOUR MORE YEARS

Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.5    4 months ago
Totally into conspiracy theories I see.

Hey, you are the one that is still saying Russia didn't try to influence our election process, (despite everyone but trump saying it DID happen). 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @9.1.5    4 months ago
Totally into conspiracy theories I see.

The fact that the white supremacists in America are on the rise feeling emboldened by Trump is not a theory. The fact that those white supremacists support the Trump agenda is not a theory.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/us/hate-groups-rise.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/14/white-supremacists-see-friend-trump

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/10/white-supremacists-neo-nazis-charlottesville-unite-right-rally-trump-column/935708002/

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-38057104/hail-trump-white-nationalists-mark-trump-win-with-nazi-salute

It must be a strange upside down reality that some live in where the constant lies and bullshit about Hillary, from pizza parlor sex rings to supposed assassinations of staffers are considered fact while the very real rise of white supremacy in America and in the Republican party is labeled as fiction because it's simply too inconvenient for the right wing to face. If they actually turned to face that part of their party and told the white supremacists to get the F out of their party they know they would lose nearly all the power they desperately cling to so they prefer to lie to themselves. If they keep repeating the same lie, they hope everyone will eventually believe it, perhaps even themselves.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.8    4 months ago
Hillary and DNC pay for dirt on Trump from another country...media and anti-Trumpers dance and cheer!

Excellent info, thanks for that...

384

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  MrFrost @9.1.6    4 months ago

Every day feels like years in Trump world. ...

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.1.11  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @9.1.10    4 months ago

you will be ok

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @9.1.11    4 months ago

Aw, shucks Sunshine, thanks.

 
 
 
Tacos!
10  Tacos!    4 months ago

I think he's right as the scenario is presented. It would be different if we were talking about illegally obtaining information, but if it's just information, I don't know why a foreign source should automatically prompt someone to call the FBI. What's the difference if you get your news from NBC or the BBC? Who cares if your "man on the street" lives in New York or Moscow? We live in a global information network. We get news and information from around the world on a daily basis.

Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that any politician is running away from foreign sources of opposition research and calling the FBI to report it. Heck, the dossier on Trump that justified a FISA warrant came from a foreign source and the Clinton campaign was more than happy to use it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @10    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @10    4 months ago
I don't know why a foreign source should automatically prompt someone to call the FBI.

Depends on diplomatic status... If it's from an enemy or adversarial county, I think going to the FBI is what should be done. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @10.2    4 months ago
If it's from an enemy or adversarial county

That could be a tough line to draw. Some countries will be fairly obvious - like if we're at war or we don't have an embassy there or something. But if we have regular friendly contact, conduct lots of trade, our citizens and theirs visit the two countries pretty freely . . . can that be an adversary?

I think if you have reason to be believe a representative of a government - any foreign government (friend or foe) - is sticking its nose in an election, it certainly can't hurt to give the FBI a heads up. But if Joe Blowski from Moscow emails you some dirt? I don't know. What if he's from France? Tokyo?

And in any case, should this preclude you from repeating the information? What about passing it on to the New York Times?

I see a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the sanctimonious judging of the use of information. The news networks are all clutching their pearls over Trump's remarks, but let's be real. They have never cared one little bit where salacious news comes from. They will publish anything that gets ratings. 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10    4 months ago
I think he's right as the scenario is presented.

So let's get straight that the scenario is that a country like Russia, China or North Korea offered this alleged 'dirt'. 

It would be different if we were talking about illegally obtaining information, but if it's just information, I don't know why a foreign source should automatically prompt someone to call the FBI.

So do you ask the aforementioned countries or their 'nationals' if it's 'illegally obtained' or do you 'take a look' at it first and THEN ask? 

Oh and one more question on that, why the fuck would you believe what they told you, either about the legality of how the information was obtained OR the veracity of the information they provided? 

What's the difference if you get your news from NBC or the BBC? Who cares if your "man on the street" lives in New York or Moscow?

The question is, WHO do they represent and what are their vested interests, NOT where reports it or where they live...

Heck, the dossier on Trump that justified a FISA warrant came from a foreign source and the Clinton campaign was more than happy to use it.

Oh please DO tell me all about how the Clinton campaign used the Steele dossier. Please post a link on one of the in depth reports about the Clinton campaign releasing the Steele dossier.  

 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @10.3    4 months ago
So do you ask the aforementioned countries or their 'nationals' if it's 'illegally obtained' or do you 'take a look' at it first and THEN ask?

I kind of doubt that if someone broke the law to obtain information, they would just admit it.

The question is, WHO do they represent

Why would that matter? If some random foreigner comes to you with information (assuming you have no reason to think it was acquired illegally) do you ignore it because he's a government employee? What if he's just a private citizen? What if it's the Crown Prince of Bumfuckistan and he tells [insert name of politician running for election] about something he saw on Al Jazeera because he guesses (correctly) that the American politician doesn't watch Al Jazeera?

When does the simple passing of information become something we would consider either morally or criminally wrong?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
10.3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.1    4 months ago

Have them explain how in the fuck somebody’s gonna know if it’s legit or not unless they actually review the material that they’re presented with.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.1    4 months ago
I kind of doubt that if someone broke the law to obtain information, they would just admit it.

So the whole BS about 'illegally obtained' is irrelevant isn't it? 

If some random foreigner comes to you with information (assuming you have no reason to think it was acquired illegally) do you ignore it because he's a government employee?

First of all, if that information is about my POLITICAL opponent; I don't accept it, I would tell the fucker to bugger off and I would call the FBI, just as Director Wray said I should. 

It's illegal and anyone who would offer said information is making an overt attempt at compromising who they are making the offer to and anyone who accepts it is too much of an idiot to hold office. 

What if he's just a private citizen?

What part of the whole representing and vested interest thingy don't you understand? 

What if it's the Crown Prince of Bumfuckistan and he tells [insert name of politician running for election] about something he saw on Al Jazeera because he guesses (correctly) that the American politician doesn't watch Al Jazeera?

That information is in the public domain and the question is unworthy... Try harder. 

 
 
 
Dulay
10.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @10.3.2    4 months ago
Have them explain how in the fuck somebody’s gonna know if it’s legit or not unless they actually review the material that they’re presented with.

Whether it's 'legit' or not is besides the point. 

That's like saying that you're immune to prosecution because you hired a hit man that was an undercover cop. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @10.3.3    4 months ago
So the whole BS about 'illegally obtained' is irrelevant isn't it? 

No. It depends on whether possession of such material will be criminal if it's knowingly received as illegal or if it's a strict liability standard. 

That information is in the public domain and the question is unworthy... Try harder. 

Reread the scenario. You have no way of knowing that.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @10.3.5    4 months ago
No. It depends on whether possession of such material will be criminal if it's knowingly received as illegal or if it's a strict liability standard. 

Actually, it doesn't. Whether the information is obtained illegally or NOT, if it from a 'foreign national' it is illegal to solicit, accept or receive that information. PERIOD full stop. 

Reread the scenario. You have no way of knowing that.

What an American politician watches is irrelevant to whether it's in the public domain or not. Al Jazeera is an international news network whose content is shared by other media all over the world. So whatever the Crown Prince of Bumfuckistan saw on his telly is public domain. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11  livefreeordie    4 months ago

I agree with the president. There is no authority for Congress to legislate against this as long as it’s not from a Congressionally passed and presidentially signed declaration or resolution that of a specific nation deemed an enemy of the United States.

should the Dems pursue this, Trump should take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @11    4 months ago

It is a felony, Larry, to use anything of value, (including information), to win an election in the USA that is obtained from a foreign national. 

PERIOD. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @11.1    4 months ago
including information

And how exactly Mr. Frost can anyone prove "foreign information"?

Is that reading a foreign newspaper?   Watching BBC on the TV?   How about paying a former MI6 agent for information?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @11.1    4 months ago

Nope. And any such laws would be unconstitutional.   There is no authority in the Constitution for any such laws by Congress.

BTW, neither Pelosi or Senator Warner seem to agree with you. They want new legislation to make it a crime.

Should they do so, Trump should veto it  

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.1    4 months ago

Ok, how? I just posted the law, if you do not agree with it, fine, call your congressman.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.3    4 months ago
Ok, how? I just posted the law,

What law specifically Frost?  Please specify specific US Code.  [deleted]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.3    4 months ago

Where? I don’t see any such thing.  Why should it make where you get negative information from about an opposition candidate?

if it’s true or false, let voters decide for themselves

[deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.2    4 months ago

You are aware that this country has laws OTHER than what's in the constitution, right? 

Foreign nationals

Campaigns may not   solicit   or accept   contributions   from   foreign nationals . Federal law prohibits contributions,   donations ,   expenditures   and   disbursements   solicited,   directed , received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to   political committees   and building funds and to make   electioneering communications . Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with federal and nonfederal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a   conduit or intermediary   for foreign national contributions and donations.

A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has:

  • Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national;
  • Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or
  • Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.

Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of:

  • Use of a foreign passport or passport number;
  • Use of a foreign address;
  • A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
  • Contributor or donor living abroad.

The fact that you disagree with it, means literally nothing. 

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cant-contribute/

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.5    4 months ago
'Democrats hate liberty and prefer government controls over everything but our sex lives and abortion'

Your usual  nonsense.  That makes no sense, as usual.  

We want control over your sex life?  and abortion?  Or we don't want control over your sex life and abortion?  

You forgot to add Marxist, Statist, Socialist jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.4    4 months ago

52 USC 30121 : Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

_____________________________

52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals Text contains those laws in effect on June 12, 2019
From Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS Subtitle III-Federal Campaign Finance CHAPTER 301-FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS SUBCHAPTER I-DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FUNDS

§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It 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;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of   section 30104(f)(3) of this title ); or


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

(b) "Foreign national" defined

As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by   section 611(b) of title 22 , except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in   section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by   section 1101(a)(20) of title 8 .

(   title III, §319, formerly §324, as added     title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976,     ; renumbered §319,     title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980,     ; amended     title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002,     ,   109 .)

Codification

Section was formerly classified to   section 441e of Title 2 , The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 319 of     was renumbered section 314, and is classified to   section 30115 of this title .

Another prior section 319 of     was renumbered section 318, and was classified to   section 439b of Title 2 , The Congress, prior to repeal by   .

Amendments

2002 -   §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a).     §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

Subsec. (b)(2).     §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in   section 1101(a)(22) of title 8 )" after "United States".

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by     effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of     set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under   section 30101 of this title .

............

Happy now? SMH 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.4    4 months ago

So you have first hand knowledge [deleted?]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.8    4 months ago

Yep....  now you've posted what you CLAIMED to have posted.

What's hilarious is that you're essentially laughing at yourself, so thanks for the laugh.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.11  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.9    4 months ago
So you have first hand knowledge [deleted]?

I have no idea what you're mumbling about [deleted.]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.12  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.6    4 months ago

And I would challenge the Constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Court.

we have thousands upon thousands of totalitarian laws that need to be repealed 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.13  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.7    4 months ago

I made it clear Dems only apply liberty to sex and allowing abortions. Everything else they want to contro or prohibit by laws including taxes and regulation

not all totalitarian governments are Marxist or socialist.

All Statism is totalitarian 

pall Marxist and/or socialist (including social democracies) are totalitarian because they require forced statist collectivism 

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.14  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.13    4 months ago

So why shouldn't liberty be applied to someone's sex life?

Who should control people's sex lives?

There are regulations on abortion and nothing you can do about it 'pastor'

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.12    4 months ago
'And I would challenge the Constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Court.'

You would?

For serious?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.16  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.14    4 months ago

You’re still missing my point. I’m not advocating for regulating or controlling people’s sex lives.

im contending that the only liberties the left cares about are sex and abortion

as to abortion, science says its murder, but is currently considered legal because of SCOTUS. It’s still a crime against humanity

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.16    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.18  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.15    4 months ago

Absolutely. The Constitution does not give that power to Congress.

explain why it matters where opposition information comes from if it’s factual

if you want to consider it interfering in an election, then it’s interfering no matter the source.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
11.1.19  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.17    4 months ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.20  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.10    4 months ago
Yep....  now you've posted what you CLAIMED to have posted.

So you are admitting I was right in the first place. Thanks. 

essentially laughing at yourself, so thanks for the laugh.

Makes no sense at all. 

Have a super day. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.21  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.12    4 months ago
And I would challenge the Constitutionality all the way to the Supreme Cour

So you don't believe in protecting the USA from foreign agents that would do us harm...got it. I'll look for you on the news. 

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.22  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.1    4 months ago
And how exactly Mr. Frost can anyone prove "foreign information"?

That's a strawman argument XD.

Nobody said 'foreign information' yet you pretend to quote it and then ask MrFrost to defend it.

Of course you 'spiced' that with snark.

Well done...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.24  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @11.1.22    4 months ago
And how exactly Mr. Frost can anyone prove "foreign information"?

That's a strawman argument XD.

Nobody said 'foreign information' yet you pretend to quote it and then ask MrFrost to defend it.

Of course you 'spiced' that with snark.

Well done...

Maybe you should have read the ENTIRE piece I responded to and you would understand where foreign came from.  I'll save you the time of going back and copy it here for you:

It is a felony, Larry, to use anything of value, (including information), to win an election in the USA that is obtained from a foreign national
 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.25  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.24    4 months ago
Maybe you should have read the ENTIRE piece I responded to and you would understand where foreign came from.  I'll save you the time of going back and copy it here for you:

I did read it XD. Yes I see that both 'foreign' and 'information' are in that comment. Yet as you highlighted in bold, they weren't used TOGETHER, were they XD? 

So you constructed a strawman. Own it.

It would behoove you to recognize that felony is to receive something of value from a foreign national. WHERE that thing of value originated is irrelevant. WHO it came from is. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
11.1.26  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @11.1.25    4 months ago

Whatever.  Play your word parsing games with others.  I don't play any longer.  Bye bye.

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1.27  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.7    4 months ago

LFOD’s comment you quoted is right on and 100% correct.  I proudly identify with and endorse his comment as if I’d written it myself.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1.28  Heartland American  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1.11    4 months ago

Nice post.  A very valuable contribution to this seed. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
11.1.29  Heartland American  replied to  livefreeordie @11.1.16    4 months ago

Without a doubt. jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.2  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @11    4 months ago

Duh, it's already a felony and the law is there for you to read

 
 
 
Dulay
11.3  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @11    4 months ago
There is no authority for Congress to legislate against this as long as it’s not from a Congressionally passed and presidentially signed declaration or resolution that of a specific nation deemed an enemy of the United States.

Just for shits and giggles LFOD, WTF are you talking about? 

If the Congress has no authority to legislate, HOW does it become 'Congressionally passed and presidentially signed? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12  XDm9mm    4 months ago

President Trump gave a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

What he did NOT do, unlike Hillary Clinton and her band of merry henchmen in the DNC (and apparently her cohorts in the FBI) was to pay A FOREIGN former MI6 Operative to develop "dirt" on a political adversary.

Now as to Nancy Pelosi.   If as you claim President Trump has in fact violated the law, as the old saw goes...  Put up or shut up.   Show your cards and impeach.  As Adam Schiff and others have claimed they "saw the evidence".   USE IT AND IMPEACH...  or go back and hide in your little hole and lick your wounds.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @12    4 months ago
A FOREIGN former MI6 Operative to develop "dirt" on a political adversary.

Is Britain an ally? Yea, they kinda are. Is Russia? No. HUGE difference. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @12.1    4 months ago
Is Britain an ally? Yea, they kinda are. Is Russia? No. HUGE difference. 

Only in your mind.   A British operative is a FOREIGN AGENT.  PERIOD END OF STORY.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @12.1.1    4 months ago

FROM AN ALLY COUNTRY. Hello?????!!!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @12.1.1    4 months ago

SO NUFF SAID.  CASE CLOSED.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @12.1.2    4 months ago
FROM AN ALLY COUNTRY. Hello?????!!!!

FROM A FOREIGN AGENT.....   HELLO?

You DO know the difference between a FOREIGN PERSON and a US CITIZEN do you not?

FOREIGN is FOREIGN whether Russian, British, Canadian, or any other country.   

Ally or not, a FOREIGNER is a FOREIGNER.  Period end of story.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @12.1    4 months ago
Is Britain an ally? Yea, they kinda are. Is Russia? No. HUGE difference.

If they aren't American, then they are foreign.

Really, how hard is that to grasp?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
12.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.5    4 months ago
If they aren't American, then they are foreign.

Steele was a private British citizen who no longer worked for the British government and was not contacting Democrats telling them he had dirt on Trump he wanted to negotiate for in return for sanctions removal for Britain.

If all the Trump campaign had done was hired some private Russian citizen to gather legal intelligence and put together opposition research for the Trump team we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead we have dozens of contacts directly with Russian operatives who were in fact making the offer of dirt collected on Hillary and had in fact illegally hacked private US citizens email to get it, all with the intent of getting Trump elected and the sanctions removed in return for their help. Anyone who can't see how completely different these two cases are is apparently trying to view it through Trumps bellybutton, the only outlook they have now with their head firmly planted up his ass.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @12.1.6    4 months ago
Steele was a private British citizen

Very good--if he isn't American, he is a foreigner.

He may not have contacted Democrats, but he was hired and in contact with the company Democrats hired to find dirt on Trump. And Democrats certainly helped pay for what info he had.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.7    4 months ago

Not only did the DNC and Clinton campaign pay millions to a foreign cutout to obtain information (that was most likely planted Russian propaganda) on Trump from Russian officials, the DNC also approached the Ukrainian government and asked for damaging information to be used against Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.8    4 months ago

Lies, lies, and more lies 

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.8    4 months ago

What's a cutout?

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.10    4 months ago
What's a cutout?

What difference does it make? [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.8    4 months ago
Not only did the DNC and Clinton campaign pay millions to a foreign cutout to obtain information (that was most likely planted Russian propaganda) on Trump from Russian officials, the DNC also approached the Ukrainian government and asked for damaging information to be used against Trump.

Prove that the DNC and [the] Clinton campaign paid millions for the Steele dossier. I'll wait...

BTFW, are you sad that Giuliani came back from the Ukraine empty handed? Or do you expect that his trip there will bare fruit eventually? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @12.1.12    4 months ago

You are a big boy, I'm confident you can do the research on your own.

Giuliani came back from the Ukraine

And here comes the deflections....

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.13    4 months ago
You are a big boy, I'm confident you can do the research on your own.

You are a big boy Sean and I'm sure that you know that since YOU made the assertion, YOU have the burden of proof. 

Or was that post just your way of saying 'I've got nothing and just pulled that out of my nether regions'? 

And here comes the deflections....

My comment has a direct comparison to yours Sean. Stop the crap. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @12.1.14    4 months ago

[ deleted ]

that Giuliani came back from the Ukraine empty handed

Giuliani never went to the Ukraine .

https://www.apnews.com/57bfa5c6823c44b7bcb8d51589eabd98

See how it's done? I took your false factual allegation and proved it's false, all without whining for you to do my work for me. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
12.1.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.7    4 months ago
Very good--if he isn't American, he is a foreigner.

The law prohibits American political campaigns from taking "a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value" from foreigners.

Chris Steele didn't give a "thing of value" to the campaign expecting something in return. He was hired, so he received a thing of value, cash, to collect opposition research on the Trump ties to Russia.

The Trump campaign, on the other hand, was offered a "thing of value" from Russian government operatives with the implicit assumption if they helped Trump get elected they would receive favorable treatment and sanctions would be lifted and the Magnitsky act would be repealed. Even though they were careful enough to cover their tracks, the Russians obviously believed there was at least an implicit deal in place. The day Trump asked the Russians to try and find Hillary's missing emails there were numerous cyber attacks on dozens of related servers for Clinton and the DNC. They illegally hacked private citizens emails and publicly released them in an effort to help Trump get elected, which is another glaring difference between the two cases. Did Steele steal anything? Did he illegally and illicitly hack private American servers? Did he break any laws in his opposition research?

So in one case its a totally legitimate hiring of a professional investigator to legally gather opposition research. On the other it's totally illegal offers of illegally obtained "dirt" in exchange for better treatment after an election. Yet we still have Trump sycophants extolling their deep throated defense of the indefensible, trying to ignorantly create a false equivalence between apples and orangutans. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @12.1.15    4 months ago

[deleted]

Giuliani never went to the Ukraine .

Good for you Sean. You proved that Giuliani didn't go to the Ukraine to get them to give him dirt on Biden because it became a publicity nightmare. Who knew that anyone in Trump's orbit could be shamed. 

See how it's done? I took your false factual allegation and proved it's false, all without whining for you to do my work for me.

I didn't ask you to do 'my' work for me Sean. I asked you to meet YOUR burden of proof, which is YOUR obligation as the one who made the assertion. 

Please proceed and STOP deflecting. 

BTFW, either it's a 'false allegation' or it's a 'factual allegation'. There is no such thing as a 'false factual allegation'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.7    4 months ago
Very good--if he isn't American, he is a foreigner.

So the Democrats dealt with ONE British 'foreigner', while the Republicans had over 100 contacts with adversarial foreigners.

Ya, Steele is the problem. /s

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @12.1.18    4 months ago
a, Steele is the problem. /s

I never said Steele was a problem. Why make shit up?

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.19    4 months ago
I never said Steele was a problem.

I didn't say you did. Why make shit up?

 
 
 
Heartland American
12.1.21  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @12.1.17    4 months ago

Sean was right about what it was that he said.  

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @12.1.21    4 months ago
Sean was right about what it was that he said.

Not even Sean is defending that bullshit anymore. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
12.2  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @12    4 months ago

the comments presented are nothing but the usual fables from the right

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
13  Dismayed Patriot    4 months ago

I keep hearing sad attempts at equivalence between accepting a foreign governments aid if they called and said they had dirt on your opponent versus hiring a citizen in a foreign country to research your opponents possible ties to that foreign country. Are conservatives completely blind to the difference here?

In one case, no one is "offering" opposition research to a campaign with the implication that in exchange for this dirt the candidate will treat the offering nation favorably when they win the election. Instead you have a private British citizen, Chris Steele, who is an expert in another countries (Russia) foreign policy and illicit activities, hired to research the apparent ties between a campaign and an enemy foreign government that had over 140 meetings with Russian operatives and pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs.

In the other case you actually have numerous enemy foreign agents offering illegally obtained dirt on a political opponent who have determined that this candidate will treat them more favorably than the other. You have an enemy foreign government using its resources (at least $1.25 million a month during the campaign) to run fake social media ads and campaigns specifically to help Trump win which reach over 120 million Americans. You have an enemy foreign government publicly releasing illegally obtained private American citizens stolen emails in an effort to help Trump win.

"I'm from Russia. ... My question will be about foreign politics. If you would be elected as a president, what will be your foreign politics especially in relationship with my country? And do you want to continue the politics of sanctions that are damaging of both economy [sic] or do you have other ideas?" - convicted Russian spy Maria Butina

"I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin, OK? And I mean, where we have the strength, I don't think you'd need the sanctions." - Donald Trump in response.

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/this-video-apparently-shows-maria-butina-asking-trump-about-russia-its-wild-9785241

“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” - Reporter in Helsinki

“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Putin

Those trying so hard to make a false equivalence between the two should really be ashamed of themselves and how pitifully weak their ignorant argument is and the fact that by defending, deflecting and distracting from the facts they are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, and Putin couldn't be happier about their support.

 
 
 
Tessylo
14  seeder  Tessylo    4 months ago

'President Trump gave a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.'  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

More Rumpsplanations.

Yawn.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
14.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @14    4 months ago

If trump ate a live human baby on TV, I am sure the excuse would be, "well, it's a hypothetical baby". 

 
 
 
pat wilson
14.2  pat wilson  replied to  Tessylo @14    4 months ago

They will stand on their heads and spit wooden nickels to excuse this PoS's repulsive behavior.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

I knew somebody would post this story. 

So, here is my take on it:

First, Trump does have the right to listen to any government or foreign leader he feels is relevant.

Second, Fox News was wrong to think that the Stephanopoulos interview was a set up. It was reasonable

Third, Chris Como over at CNN is wrong to interpret this as the President condoning criminal conduct.

Last but not least, the real issue I had with the interview - Who the hell allowed Stephanopoulos to be hovering over the President of the United States?

donald-trump-george-stephanopoulos-abc-j

If it was Sanders, then I'm glad she's leaving.

 
 
 
MrFrost
15.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago
Who the hell allowed Stephanopoulos to be hovering over the President of the United States?

I am sure he was there with permission Vic...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @15.1    4 months ago

Of course he was there with permission, but the Communications Director or the Press Secretary dictates the decorum of an interview. You never let a reporter or journalist stand over a seated President as questions are being asked. 

 
 
 
Ender
15.1.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    4 months ago

Why not just put any blame where it belongs. With trump himself. We all know he does what ever he wants.

Do you expect him to be on his knees next to trump? Or maybe sitting on a chair across the room?

If there is any bad optics blame the one that allowed it to happen.

It is always someone else at fault when it comes to trump and his supporters.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
15.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.1.1    4 months ago
You never let a reporter or journalist stand over a seated President as questions are being asked. 

Did the 5'7" George Stephanopolous, who looks like he weighs about 140 pounds, physically intimidate President* Trump?   That would be a pity. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
15.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1.3    4 months ago
 
 
 
Tessylo
15.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago

You're just mad that I beat you to it Vic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago

So the lying fat cow Sanders is leaving?

When?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
15.3.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @15.3    4 months ago
When?

At the end of the month. She is returning to Arkansas, where it is speculated that she will run for Governor, like her Father did.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wh-press-secretary-sarah-sanders-will-leave-office-by-the-end-of-the-month-trump-announces

Oh what fun that will be.  /s

 
 
 
Sunshine
15.3.2  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @15.3    4 months ago
When?

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.3    4 months ago
So the lying fat cow Sanders is leaving?

Didn't CNN report it?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @15.3    4 months ago

Farewell strong woman. You did well under fire!

D8_0bNJVUAECG4A?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.5  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.4    4 months ago
You did well under fire!

By admittedly lying to the American people.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.5    4 months ago

By having to deal with decadent morons who have destroyed the integrity of American journalism

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.3.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.4    4 months ago

Bye Felicia!  You lying fat cow bitch!

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.8  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.6    4 months ago

So you don't mind her lying to the American public but how dare the press ask questions....

 
 
 
katrix
15.3.9  katrix  replied to  Ender @15.3.8    4 months ago
So you don't mind her lying to the American public but how dare the press ask questions....

It's mind boggling, isn't it?  Anything to defend Trump and his toadies ... screw our country and our constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.8    4 months ago
but how dare the press ask questions....

I recall them trying to debate her....Since when does giving ones ideological view constitute a question?

Contrast the press conferences she was subjected to with those that Josh Earnest got to enjoy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @15.3.9    4 months ago
It's mind boggling, isn't it?

You can direct your comments to me, I'm still here

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.12  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.10    4 months ago

So in other words, they should just shut up and take her lies and not question them.

 
 
 
Dulay
15.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.10    4 months ago
Contrast the press conferences she was subjected to with those that Josh Earnest got to enjoy.

Who many of those were on the road outside of the WH? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.12    4 months ago
So in other words

In straight talk they should act like journalists. I have no problem, as I said, with Stephanopoulos questions the other day. I have serious objections to what people like Jim Acosta were allowed to get away with.

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.15  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.14    4 months ago

So again, it is the journalists fault. I have not heard you once condemn Sanders lying.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.15    4 months ago

The two things are not equal are they?   If the White House Press Secretary truly lies about anything it reflects badly on the administration.

If the press corps is openly hostile to the administration, where it lies or it engages in an ideological diatribe against the administration it not only destroys the credibility of the national media but it is a betrayal of the public trust. We depend on the media to keep their personal beliefs out of it. When the people can no longer trust the media, we really are in trouble.

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.17  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.16    4 months ago

So you don't believe she lied, even though she admitted it.

This administration has been openly hostile to the press, repeatedly.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.17    4 months ago
So you don't believe she lied, even though she admitted it.

Why don't you give us the lie that you keep reciting?

This administration has been openly hostile to the press, repeatedly.

Why not just admit that the msm ie: The New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN has lied to the American people for over 2 years about this President?    There was no collusion was there?

Why not admit that they tried to defeat this President from the day he won the GOP nomination right up until the day he won the Presidential election?

Why not admit that they most likely did more damage to Trump than Russia ever did to Hillary Clinton?

Why not admit that the timely release "Access Hollywood Tape" by the Washington Post was supposed to torpedo any chance he had at becoming President?

But, But, But you want to blame Trump for the hostility ?  

On Trump's side, any hostility is justified!!!

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.19  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.18    4 months ago

So the Mueller report where she admitted she lied is a lie?

Just wow.

You act like everything the has been reported about trump is the fault of the press and actually it is. Should they hide stories or bury them? Did trump not say the things in the tapes?

His hostility is no where near justified when they report on his actual character.

trump damages himself every time he opens his mouth.

You seem to be under the impression that the press should only publish feel good stories about your dear leader.

How dare they report about an actual investigation.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
15.3.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.18    4 months ago
Why don't you give us the lie that you keep reciting?

" Sanders was caught lying  in the special counsel Robert Mueller’s   report. After Trump’s firing of the FBI director James Comey, Sanders attempted to cast the decision in a positive light, saying she had heard from “countless members of the FBI” that they had no confidence in him . But speaking under oath to Mueller’s team she admitted that the sentiment “was not founded on anything” .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/sarah-sanders-press-secretary-trump

That was just one of many lies and deceptions expressed by this cowardly bag of shit press secretary. I guess one can't blame her for being a bag of shit considering she had to try and be the metaphorical adult diaper for this incontinent incompetent joke of a President.

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.21  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @15.3.20    4 months ago

I can only think that with the attacks on Mueller now, they all think that he is the liar.

That they believe trump's lies and bullshit unquestioningly says as much about them as it does trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @15.3.20    4 months ago

Do you know if that is what Ender is talking about?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @15.3.21    4 months ago
I can only think that with the attacks on Mueller now, they all think that he is the liar.

We have recently discovered that Mueller hid exculpatory evidence on McGahn's statements

 
 
 
Ender
15.3.24  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.23    4 months ago

This is a new one on me. Gotta link for that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
15.3.25  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @15.3.20    4 months ago

I'd be hard pressed if I was the Press Secretary to define the one actual reason that Comey was fired, so many reasons were given. The fact is that no reason is necessary and in Comey's case, he should have been fired on day 1

And we are not going to talk about the media, right?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
15.3.26  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @15.3.24    4 months ago
This is a new one on me. Gotta link for that?

I don't have a link, but it would be nothing new for Mueller.   He was threatened with contempt of court if he continued to refuse to provide the court the hidden exculpatory evidence in a court case when he was FBI Director.  When provided, it got people OUT of prison and put a few FBI agents back in their place.

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.3.27  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.18    4 months ago

It's all fake news according to the turd when the press tells the truth about him.

Got it!

 
 
 
MrFrost
15.3.28  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.4    4 months ago
Farewell strong woman. You did well under fire!

She was paid 186k a year to lie to your face, and you are giving her praise? Really? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
15.3.29  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.25    4 months ago
The fact is that no reason is necessary and in Comey's case, he should have been fired on day 1

Why? He threw the election to trump, I would think that would make you more than happy. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
15.3.30  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @15.3.18    4 months ago

Well said Vic. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
15.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago
Last but not least, the real issue I had with the interview - Who the hell allowed Stephanopoulos to be hovering over the President of the United States?

It's easy to see that Trump allowed him to do so. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
15.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @15    4 months ago

I'm sure that's how the turd wanted it.  Him seated at the throne and Stephanopoulous 'hovering'.  

What do you think, the turd is royalty or something?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
16  Freedom Warrior    4 months ago

 Apparently these things only matter if you’re a Republican. 

 
 
 
Dulay
16.1  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @16    4 months ago

Please cite an instance when ANYONE else has stated that they are willing to accept help to win an election from a foreign country? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freedom Warrior @16    4 months ago
Apparently these things only matter if you’re a Republican. 

Evidently, Since the Clinton campaign actually went out and PAID for dirt from a foreign entity!

 
 
 
Dulay
16.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2    4 months ago
Evidently, Since the Clinton campaign actually went out and PAID for dirt from a foreign entity!

Steele isn't a 'foreign entity', he's a private citizen and he wasn't paid directly by the Clinton campaign. Try harder.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @16.2.1    4 months ago
Steele isn't a 'foreign entity

He is British and a former member of MI6. He ran the Russia Desk of MI6 in London from 2006 - 2009.

he wasn't paid directly by the Clinton campaign

The Clinton campaign used middlemen to do the dirty work so that there would be no direct link between the campaign and in this case Steele and supposedly the Russians. That also allows for their supporters to defend them.
In this case the middleman was the know well know opposition research firm "Fusion GPS", to which the campaign paid millions for the Steele Dossier, which got used by the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.

Thanks for opening the door.

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.2    4 months ago

Wrong.

Try harder.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.3    4 months ago

Maybe I could have been a bit more clear.



Molly Hemingway said it better than I could:

"Let's be clear on what *actually* happened. Clinton/DNC secretly bought and paid for info sourced to shady foreign actors, got gov't officials to weaponize it, and used

@jaketapper

to publicize it to undermine peaceful transfer of power and meddle in administration of gov't."

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.2.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.4    4 months ago

Still wrong.  

Who cares what Molly Hemingway said?  Whoever she is.  She's wrong.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.5    4 months ago

Why are we all wrong?

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.2.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.6    4 months ago

Simple.  Because you are.  

Clearly, that's not what *actually* happened.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
16.2.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.6    4 months ago
[delete.]
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.7    4 months ago

The Clinton campaign didn't hire Fusion GPS to obtain opposition research?

 
 
 
katrix
16.2.10  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.9    4 months ago

Actually, Republicans hired Fusion GPS first.  Funny how the right wing always manages to forget that. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
16.2.11  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @16.2.10    4 months ago

Thanks for the truth of the matter, as usual Katrix.  

[deleted]  

 
 
 
Dulay
16.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @16.2.2    4 months ago

We obviously have a different concept of what an 'entity' is. 

In this case the middleman was the know well know opposition research firm "Fusion GPS", to which the campaign paid millions for the Steele Dossier

PROVE that Fusion GPS received millions for the Steele Dossier. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @16.2.10    4 months ago

Fusion GPS works for whoever has the money.  Funny how the left always brings it up. You are the first one who didn't try and say that Republicans were first to pay for the Steele Dossier, which is the lie usually attached to that accusation. I give you credit for that.

Fusion GPS also did opposition research for Planned Parenthood to get dirt on The Center for Medical Progress. Remember the video's that showed Planned Parenthood officials offering to sell body parts?  

Fusion GPS also did opposition research on Mitt Romney during the 2012 campaign

 
 
 
XDm9mm
16.2.14  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @16.2.10    4 months ago
Actually, Republicans hired Fusion GPS first.  Funny how the right wing always manages to forget that.

We hardly forget, but we also realize that they dropped it quickly.  And it was a "Conservative" newspaper that Fusion GPS who hired Steele.

The conservative news website The Washington Free Beacon says during the 2016 campaign it first hired the firm that later produced a dossier of unsubstantiated information about Donald Trump's Russia ties. The political research firm, Fusion GPS, commissioned former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who went on to produce what's been called the "Steele dossier."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/28/560544607/conservative-website-initially-hired-firm-that-later-produced-trump-dossier

 
 
 
XDm9mm
16.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @16.2.12    4 months ago
PROVE that Fusion GPS received millions for the Steele Dossier

It's hard to prove dark money, but here's a bit of information that will help lead you in your search for the truth.

The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since November 2015 — though it's impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

Source:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.969972043b9e

If you want more, well as I'm always told, Google it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @16.2.12    4 months ago
PROVE that Fusion GPS received millions for the Steele Dossier.

As you know the Clinton campaign and DNC (because of campaign finance laws) tried to cover up those payments via the law firm of Perkins Coie:

Here from the New York Times:

"However, Republicans and campaign watchdogs have accused the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C. of violating campaign finance laws by disguising the payments to Fusion GPS on mandatory disclosures to the Federal Election Commission. Their disclosure reports do not list any payments from the Clinton campaign or the D.N.C. to Fusion GPS. They do list a total of $12.4 million in payments to Perkins Coie, but that’s almost entirely for legal consulting, with only one payment — of $66,500 — for “research consulting” from the D.N.C.

In a   complaint filed with the election commission   in October, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group that urges stricter enforcement of election laws, alleged that “at least some of those payments were earmarked for Fusion GPS, with the purpose of conducting opposition research on Donald Trump.” The complaint asserts that the failure to list the ultimate purpose of that money “undermined the vital public information role that reporting is intended to serve.”

Graham M. Wilson, a partner at Perkins Coie, called the complaint “patently baseless,” in part because, he said, the research was done “to support the provision of legal services, and payments made by vendors to sub-vendors are not required to be disclosed in circumstances like this.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

You will see the amount in the Post story provided in the post above mine


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
16.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.11    4 months ago
Thanks for the truth of the matter, as usual Katrix.  

She didn't dispute the veracity of the claim. She only mentioned that the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS during the primary election.

Don't you understand the difference?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
16.2.18  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @16.2.10    4 months ago
Actually, Republicans hired Fusion GPS first.  Funny how the right wing always manages to forget that. 

Your sweeping generalization in targeting Republicans is not accurate and is an effort to falsely target The Washington Free Beacon.

The conservative news website   The Washington Free Beacon   says during the 2016 campaign it f irst hired the firm that later produced a dossier of unsubstantiated information    about Donald Trump's Russia ties .

The political research firm, Fusion GPS, commissioned former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who went on to produce what's been called the "Steele dossier."

But in a statement posted Friday evening, the  Free Beacon  says it  doesn't have anything to do  with the actual dossier.

"The   Free Beacon   had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele," wrote the site's Editor in Chief Matthew Continetti and Chairman Michael Goldfarb.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/28/560544607/conservative-website-initially-hired-firm-that-later-produced-trump-dossier

 
 
 
katrix
16.2.19  katrix  replied to  Jasper2529 @16.2.18    4 months ago
Your sweeping generalization in targeting Republicans is not accurate and is an effort to falsely target The Washington Free Beacon.

I didn't say Republicans funded the Steele dossier.  They didn't - that research didn't start until the Dems were paying Fusion.  What I said was that originally Fusion was hired to conduct opposition research by the GOP, which is true.  The GOP did not want Trump as their candidate, just as the Dems didn't want Sanders as their candidate (which backfired on them, spectacularly).

 
 
 
Sunshine
16.2.20  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @16.2.19    4 months ago
What I said was that originally Fusion was hired to conduct opposition research by the GOP, which is true. 

The Washington Free Beacon is not the GOP.  I am not aware of the GOP being involved in hiring Fusion.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
16.2.21  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @16.2.19    4 months ago
I didn't say Republicans funded the Steele dossier. 

In comment 16.2.18 , you will not find evidence that I accused you of saying this. 

In comment 16.2.10 , y ou did, however, accuse the entire GOP of things that the organization and its members didn't do.

 
 
 
MrFrost
16.2.22  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @16.2.14    4 months ago
We hardly forget, but we also realize that they dropped it quickly.  And it was a "Conservative" newspaper that Fusion GPS who hired Steele.

So it wasn't Hillary or the DNC. Got it. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
16.2.23  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @16.2.5    4 months ago

She’s an editor at The Federalist and everything she wrote was exactly right.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
16.2.24  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @16.2.23    4 months ago
The Federalist

Do you EVER use any sites that aren't radical far right wing fake news sites? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
16.2.25  Raven Wing  replied to  MrFrost @16.2.24    4 months ago
Do you EVER use any sites that aren't radical far right wing fake news sites? 

Why would they ever do so, they are only interested in lie anyway. Truth is far too difficult for them to handle.

 
 
 
MrFrost
16.2.26  MrFrost  replied to  Raven Wing @16.2.25    4 months ago

Very true! I'll grant them that there are left leaning sites, but they don't lean nearly as far to the left as the right wing sites lean to the right. Infowars, breitbart, the federalist, 4chan, townhall, pj media...all far right wing sites that get quoted here daily. Even fox news runs 5-6 hate pieces on AOC daily. Fair and balanced they are not. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
17  Freedom Warrior    4 months ago

 Don’t say please it just makes you look .    never mind,  and by the way it was only a few weeks ago that that sick frickin bitch Clinton said that she would welcome interference from the Chinese government   Of Course she would, she already paid for an agent of a foreign government to interfere with her own election opponent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
17.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Freedom Warrior @17    4 months ago

If Clinton wanted to destroy Trump through the release of fake news material gathered by Christopher Steele, why didn't she? 

Nothing from the Steele dossier came out until after the election was over. 

The entire fabricated "argument" from Trump supporters is inherently stupid.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
17.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1    4 months ago
e release of fake news material gathered by Christopher Steele, why didn't she? 

She and Steele tried.  Steele even told the State Department his information needed to be public by election day.The problem was that the dossier was unverifiable bullshit.

but some outlets did use his allegations pre election. Here's Steele's work being put to use:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump/

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1    4 months ago
If Clinton wanted to destroy Trump through the release of fake news material gathered by Christopher Steele, why didn't she? 

they tried, and they failed  thanks to admiral rogers telling trump what was what.  the next day trump moved his transition team....  fast forward to today?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/06/12/confirmed-the-state-department-worked-directly-with-a-leading-democrat-to-feed-info-for-christopher-steeles-dossier-n2548044

lots of people are losing sleep over this and none of them are named trump.

cheers :)

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.1.2    4 months ago

Townhall

Has this Media Source failed a fact check?   LET US KNOW HERE .

right06.png?resize=700%2C78&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/right06.png?resize=300%2C33&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" > RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.   See all Right Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate Townhall Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of columnists that have poor fact check records.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting:  MIXED
Country:   USA
World Press Freedom Rank:   USA 45/180

History

Founded in 1995 , Townhall is an American politically conservative website and print magazine that was previously published by the   Heritage Foundation . In 2006, Townhall was purchased by Salem Communications. According to their   about page   “Townhall.com is the #1 conservative website. Townhall.com pulls together political commentary and analysis from over 100 leading columnists and opinion leaders, research from 100 partner organizations, conservative talk-radio and a community of millions of grassroots conservatives.” TownHall.com features commentary by various conservative columnists and guest commentary by politicians.  Weekly contributors include Ben Shapiro, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Marina Medvin, John Stossel, Dennis Prager, and others. Guest contributors have included Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Lara Trump. The current editor is Jonathan Garthwaite.

Funded by / Ownership

Townhall is owned by   Salem Communications , which owns numerous right leaning Christian based radio stations across the USA. According to   Open Secrets   Salem Media Group   donates   100% to Republicans and right leaning PACS. The website is funded through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Townhall almost exclusively publishes news articles that favors conservatives and utilizes strongly loaded language such as this:  Shove It, House Democrats: Another Trump-Russia Story Blows Up . This story is sourced to the left leaning   Axios   and right leaning   Fox News . In another article with loaded language, by Rush Limbaugh’s brother David:  Abortion Extremism Exposing Left’s Moral Contradictions,  there is not a single source listed to support Mr. Limbaugh’s claims. 

In general, Townhall presents story selection that almost always favors the right and uses negative wording to describe the left. There is little balance in story presentation with all information favoring the right without presenting a left perspective or counter argument. The opinion columnists associated with Townhall have poor fact check records such as   Michelle Malkin ,   Ann Coulter   and   Ben Shapiro . Straight news reporting is generally sourced properly and factual, though worded to favor the right. 

A factual search reveals a few failed fact checks, such as   this   and   this .

 
 
 
Heartland American
17.1.4  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.3    4 months ago

It’s my go to news source when driving around.  I get to chose between one talk radio station with Fox News and the other with TownHall radio news. I usually go with TownHall. Town Hall is an awesome news and opinion site.  What MBFC has to say about it means less than nothing because the haters who run that site are human debris.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @17.1.4    4 months ago

They are biased, that's obvious. Deal with it. The only reason you like them is because they say things that fit your agenda. 

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @17.1.4    4 months ago

Might I suggest that you yank the intravenous drip of conservative media and give Earth 1 a try? 

 
 
 
luther28
18  luther28    4 months ago

"There is no education in the second kick of a mule"

Mr. Trump would be well served to take the advice of his majority leader Mr. McConnell in this particular case.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
19  Nerm_L    4 months ago

Stephanopoulos asked a loaded question and Trump provided a blunt answer.  The press doesn't know how to handle that; especially from a politician.  The gottcha journalism practiced by Stephanopoulos kinda backfired.

Notice that the press isn't talking about Trump?  The topic of opinion journalism is impeachment which places the media spotlight on Democrats.  What will it take for Democrats to impeach Trump?  How can Pelosi keep stonewalling?

The other topic du jour for the media bloviators and influence peddlers is about foreign influence in politics which places the media spotlight on all of political Washington.  The entertainment value comes from watching the political deadwood try to dissimulate their own long history of 'oppo' campaigning.  Everyone does it; no one is supposed to talk about it.

Trump's blunt answer has shifted the media spotlight onto everyone else.  Trump didn't answer a loaded question with political double speak.  Trump is shining too much light into the political sludge pit of Washington and everyone sitting in their butt embossed chairs are running scared.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
19.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @19    4 months ago
Trump is shining too much light into the political sludge pit of Washington and everyone sitting in their butt embossed chairs are running scared.

Are you auditioning for Sarah Sanders recently vacated job? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
19.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @19.1    4 months ago
Are you auditioning for Sarah Sanders recently vacated job? 

I'm not defending Trump.  Trump's answer does require any interpretation, speculation, or analysis.  There isn't anything for the unbiased press to spin, twist, or propagandize.

The only thing the unbiased press can do is focus attention on Democrat's stonewalling impeachment and political Washington squirming over foreign influence in politics.

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @19    4 months ago
Stephanopoulos asked a loaded question and Trump provided a blunt answer.

The most telling part of that interview wasn't a question from Stephanopoulos. It was a reaction to a STATEMENT made by Stephanopoulos:

"The FBI director said that is what should happen,"

To which Trump replied:

"The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life," Trump said. "Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you'd think differently."

Which motivated the FEC Chairwoman to release a statement which highlights Trump's ignorance:

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
19.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @19.2    4 months ago
Which motivated the FEC Chairwoman to release a statement which highlights Trump's ignorance:
“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC.

Why contact the FBI?  The State Dept. is responsible for handling foreign relations, not the FBI.  The diplomatic corps is supposed to issue warnings to foreign countries, not the FBI.

The FBI can only take legal action against the candidate.  Foreign diplomats and registered agents are outside the FBI's jurisdiction.  What's the FBI going to do about it?

Does that prohibition against receiving anything of value extend to foreign news organizations?  If a BBC reporter gives Joe Biden information, should Biden contact the FBI?  What would that accomplish?  How far will the 'value of information' be twisted?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
19.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @19.2.1    4 months ago
If a BBC reporter gives Joe Biden information, should Biden contact the FBI?  What would that accomplish?  How far will the 'value of information' be twisted?  

The current interpretation is that opposition research constitutes a "thing of value" as per the statute. Personally, I think that's extreme for the very reason you mention.

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @19.2.1    4 months ago
Why contact the FBI?  

Because it is a CRIME. 

The State Dept. is responsible for handling foreign relations, not the FBI. The diplomatic corps is supposed to issue warnings to foreign countries, not the FBI.

Again, it is a crime, not a question of foreign policy. 

The FBI can only take legal action against the candidate.

Actually, if the candidate reports the contact, there would be NO 'legal' action against him/her. 

Foreign diplomats and registered agents are outside the FBI's jurisdiction. What's the FBI going to do about it?

I suggest that you read the 34 indictments of Russians for answers on that. 

Does that prohibition against receiving anything of value extend to foreign news organizations?

Yes. 

If a BBC reporter gives Joe Biden information, should Biden contact the FBI?

If the information is something of value in the election, yes.

If the BBC reporter informed Biden that his fly was unzipped, no. 

What would that accomplish?

Well first of all, it would be complying with the law. Second of all it would give our IC a heads up. 

How far will the 'value of information' be twisted?

HOW valuable the election information is, is irrelevant. That a 'foreign national' offered the election information is enough to trigger the statute. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
19.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @19.2    4 months ago

If only you were there to tell Bob Mueller how the law works!

It's more complicated than your drastic oversimplification that. Per Mueller:

"At the same time, no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under campaign-finance law. Such an interpretation could have implications beyond the foreign-source ban, see 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) (imposing monetary limits on campaign contributions), and raise First Amendment questions. Those questions could be especially difficult where the information consisted simply of the recounting of historically accurate facts.  It is uncertain how courts would resolve those issues

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.2.4    4 months ago
If only you were there to tell Bob Mueller how the law works!

I didn't have to be Sean. 

It's more complicated than your drastic oversimplification that. Per Mueller:

Oh the fucking irony. 

It certainly is more complicated Sean, but you are the one that posted a 'drastic oversimplification' and misleadingly so.

Do you think you're making a cogent point by posting ONLY the last half of the last paragraph of that section? 

Since so few have actually read the Mueller report, I'll post the rest of that section in full. 

i. Thing-of Value Element

A threshold legal question is whether providing to a campaign "documents and
information" of the type involved here would constitute a prohibited campaign contribution. The
foreign contribution ban is not limited to contributions of money. It expressly prohibits "a
contribution or donation of money or other thing of value." 52 U.S.C. § 3012l(a)(l)(A), (a)(2)
(emphasis added). And the term "contribution" is defined throughout the campaign-finance laws
to "include[]" "any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value."
52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

The phrases "thing of value" and "anything of value " are broad and inclusive enough to
encompass at least some forms of valuable information. Throughout the United States Code, these
phrases serve as "term[ s] of art" that are construed "broad[ly]." United States v. Nilsen , 967 F .2d
539, 542 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) ("thing of value" includes "both tangibles and intangibles ");
see also, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 20l(b)(l), 666(a)(2) (bribery statutes) ; id. § 641 (theft of government
property). For example, the term "thing of value" encompasses law enforcement reports that
would reveal the identity of informants, United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1979);
classified materials, United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306 , 310 (4th Cir . 1991); confidential
information about a competitive bid, United States v. Matzkin, 14 F .3d 1014, I 020 (4th Cir. 1994);
secret grand jury information, United States v. Jeter, 775 F.2d 670, 680 (6th Cir . 1985); and
information about a witness's whereabouts, United States v. Sheker , 618 F.2d 607 , 609 (9th Cir.
1980) (per curiam). And in the public corruption context , " ' thing of value' is defined broadly to
include the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received." United States
v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731,744 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulations recognize the value to a campaign of at
least some forms of information, stating that the term "anything of value " includes "the provision
of any goods or services without charge," such as "membership lists" and "mailing lists. " 11
C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(l) . The FEC has concluded that the phrase includes a state-by-state list of
activists. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 475 F.3d 337, 338
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (describing the FEC 's findings) . Likewise , polling data provided to a campaign
constitutes a "contribution. " FEC Advisory Opinion 1990-12 (Strub) , 1990 WL 153454 (citing 11
C.F.R. § 106.4(6)). And in the specific context of the foreign-contributions ban, the FEC has
concluded that "election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns ," including "flyers,
advertisements, door hangers , tri-folds, signs, and other printed material ," constitute "anything of value," even though "the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain ." FEC
Advisory Opinion 2007-22 (Hurysz), 2007 WL 5172375, at *5.

These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.


THEN comes the last half of the paragraph which you saw fit to post. So 4 paragraphs of legal argument and citations on how a 'Thing-of-value Element' could be argued and HALF A PARAGRAPH stating that there is no precedent case and it would be a difficult question for the court. 

That is the most disappointing comment I have ever seen you post Sean. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
19.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @19.2.5    4 months ago

Do you not understand your own posts? 

You are the one who made the simplistic pronouncement that the behavior IS a crime.  You failed to even hint at the complexity of the issue or to even address Mueller's position, though you claim to have read the Mueller report.  You were just happy to mislead  everyone  with a declaration of fact that you cannot support, and knew was not an accurate representation of the law. 

My point was that the issue is , and I quote, "more complicated than your drastic oversimplification."    I then cited the paragraph where Mueller concludes that  is "UNCERTAIN how courts would resolve those issues" which is the point I was making.  Did I make a categorical claim like you did and claim it could never, ever be considered a crime? If I had, then you would have a point. But I didn't. So you don't.

All you did was provide a fuller account of the arguments whose conclusion I summarized. since the conclusion is the only relecvant point, your "gotcha" is worthless and just another desperate attempt to distract from your own mistakes.

Do you have any shame? You know, if you are being  honest, that I'm correct. This is not an open and shut issue and, as Mueller and I argue, it is uncertain how the Courts would handle it. Yet you accuse me of being misleading  for posting the only honest conclusion, that its uncertain how the Court would handle this.  Truly shameful behavior on your part. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
19.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @19.2.3    4 months ago
Because it is a CRIME. 

The crime is to receive something of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election.  The jurisdiction of the FBI only extends to the candidates.  

HOW valuable the election information is, is irrelevant. That a 'foreign national' offered the election information is enough to trigger the statute.

No.  What triggers the statute is soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.  And solicitation, acceptance, or receipt is a crime committed by the candidate.

So, if a candidate accepts information concerning an opponent from a foreign national Al Jazeera reporter who overheard something from the opposing campaign, that would technically violate the statute.  If a British reporter publishes insider information on BBC, then opposing candidates utilizing that information would technically violate the statute.

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @19.2.6    4 months ago
You are the one who made the simplistic pronouncement that the behavior IS a crime. 

It IS a crime Sean. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You failed to even hint at the complexity of the issue or to even address Mueller's position, though you claim to have read the Mueller report. 

The comment that I replied to didn't mention the Mueller report Sean so WHY are you INSISTING that I should address it? 

You were just happy to mislead  everyone  with a declaration of fact that you cannot support, and knew was not an accurate representation of the law. 

I just DID support it with the 'law' Sean and so did Mueller but you truncated that from your comment. You're the one who posted a misleading comment Sean. Own it. 

Did I make a categorical claim like you did and claim it could never, ever be considered a crime?

No, you merely did what you claimed I did. You posted a quote that 'drastically oversimplified' the facts as cited in the Mueller report. 

If I had, then you would have a point. But I didn't. So you don't.

My point isn't based on anything you claimed Sean. It's based on your intentional trucation of the Mueller report's statements on the 'Thing-of-value element' to mislead members that it bolsters your agenda. 

All you did was provide a fuller account of the arguments whose conclusion I summarized. since the conclusion is the only relecvant point,

Bullshit. 

Where did you summarize this Sean? 

These authorities would support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply.

Please link your comment in this thread that contains ANYTHING close to that Sean? 

your "gotcha" is worthless and just another desperate attempt to distract from your own mistakes.

Please link my 'mistakes' Sean...

Do you have any shame?

What am I supposed to feel shame for Sean? 

You know, if you are being honest, that I'm correct.

I AM being honest and you are being personal. But hey, it's your MO. 

This is not an open and shut issue and, as Mueller and I argue, it is uncertain how the Courts would handle it.

Well Mueller and I are arguing that there is a plethora of legal authority that support it being ruled as a violation of 52 USC 30121. So there...

Yet you accuse me of being misleading for posting the only honest conclusion, that its uncertain how the Court would handle this.

You pretend that is a revelation. It isn't. EVERY SCOTUS ruling is uncertain. 

BTFW, characterizing what you quoted from the report as a 'conclusion' is misleading Sean. It's the last half of the last paragraph and is the ONLY part of the analysis of the subject that suggests that Campaign Finance law would not allow a successful prosecution.  That's ONE HALF of ONE paragraph in the MIDDLE of an 8 page analysis on Campaign Finance Sean. 

Truly shameful behavior on your part.

Even more disappointed to see you devolve to 'I'm rubber, you're glue'. 

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @19.2.7    4 months ago
No. What triggers the statute is soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.

solicit:

ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.

Doesn't mean they got what they asked for. 

If a British reporter publishes insider information on BBC, then opposing candidates utilizing that information would technically violate the statute.

Nope. That's getting information from the 'public domain'. The BBC is an INTERNATIONAL news network whose content is shared by media all over the world. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @19    4 months ago

The 'president' and his corrupt cabinet of gangsters, thugs, grifters, and thieves, are the 'political sludge pit of Washington'

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
20  The Magic Eight Ball    4 months ago

trump is the ultimante troll... LOL

now that the left has bashed the idea of "would accept dirt" on an opponent?

what ground will the left stand on when it is proven some other people paid foreigners for dirt on him? 

and when it is proven our govt was in on it will there be any ground left?  I don't think so.... LOL

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/06/12/confirmed-the-state-department-worked-directly-with-a-leading-democrat-to-feed-info-for-christopher-steeles-dossier-n2548044

the left has been jumping around from issue to issue playing the short game.... they forgot the long game.

cheers :)

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

How soon we forget when Ted Kennedy asked the KGB for help to defeat Ronald Reagan.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-left-longed-for-russian-political-interference

Was that legal?

 
 
 
MrFrost
21.1  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21    4 months ago

So you are saying that Ted Kennedy is as bad as trump is? Or are you saying that it's ok because someone else did? 

If it was wrong then, it's wrong now. Pretty simple. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
22  Freedom Warrior    4 months ago

 Consider this a public service announcement if anybody has any dirt on anybody whatsoever they can filter it through me and trust me I will do the right thing so you don’t have to worry about foreign governments ever interfering with elections as long is it’s me that’s  participating in one of the most devious and oldest fucking professions ever .

 
 
 
Dulay
22.1  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @22    4 months ago

Prostitution? 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

CB
Freefaller
Wheel
GregTx
lady in black
zuksam
devangelical
WallyW
Kavika
pat wilson




MrFrost
NV-Robin6


55 visitors