Page 78 of 86 FirstFirst ... 28687677787980 ... LastLast
Results 771 to 780 of 856
Thanks Tree421Thanks

Thread: Trump Jr. Was Told Russian Government Was the Source of Clinton Information

  1. #771
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    62,612
    Thanks
    42782

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Remember, this is not near the first attempt... The previous attempts have all Failed.

    So, are YOU CERTAIN that you've sunk into a juicy meal, or are like the wolf oblivious that it's meal is just the blade of the knife that's killing it? Or do you think you've maintained the same credibility through all these pushes?
    What previous attempts have failed? This just solidifies the idea that the Trump campaign had no qualms about working with foreigners to get Trump elected.

  2. #772
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    81,428
    Thanks
    55297

    From
    out of nowhere!
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Attending a meeting where someone else has promised something is not solicitation.

    A thread that I started in March states my opinion on this matter.

    It's not even slightly vague.



    Screwing around with the election
    Call the FBI. Investigation should be over. I mean, KMiller started a thread in March.

  3. #773
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,893
    Thanks
    31154

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Attending a meeting where someone else has promised something is not solicitation.
    It absolutely is solicitation:
    Solicitation is the act of offering, or attempting to purchase, goods or services. Legal status may be specific to the time or place where occurs. The crime of "solicitation to commit a crime" occurs when a person encourages, "solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause" another person to attempt or commit a crime, with the purpose of thereby facilitating the attempt or commission of that crime.[1]:698–702
    Taking the meeting is solicitation.
    A thread that I started in March states my opinion on this matter.

    It's not even slightly vague.
    Not slightly vague? You're delusional.

  4. #774
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,893
    Thanks
    31154

    From
    in my head
    Solicitation is often used to arrest johns in a prostitution sting. The act of saying "yes" to sex for hire is solicitation. It's entrapment if the person making the offer is a police officer, since the police are the ones creating the suggestion of a criminal act. But if an undercover officer is nearby and overhears a prostitute and a potential customer agreeing to a time a place to meet for sex-for-hire, the customer can be arrested. They don't actually have to have sex for a crime to occur--just agreeing to the illegal activity is solicitation.

    Why is it that you don't respond to me when I make a counter argument? No effective response?
    Thanks from boontito

  5. #775
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,893
    Thanks
    31154

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    . This alone is a major scandal and the Democrats would've been EATEN ALIVE for it.
    Any fair-minded person has to has him/herself how they would feel about this if the political parties were switched. If you excuse behavior you'd condemn in someone else, you're a hypocrite.
    Thanks from boontito

  6. #776
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    21,684
    Thanks
    13475

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Any fair-minded person has to has him/herself how they would feel about this if the political parties were switched. If you excuse behavior you'd condemn in someone else, you're a hypocrite.
    I cannot imagine it. Republicans were frothing at the mouth over Clinton Foundation meetings that happened to coincide with Hillary's tenure (which were inadvisable for her to engage in personally, the appearance of corruption is almost as important to avoid as actual corruption).

    In the wake of a Clinton victory, if proof positive of a quid pro quo feeler and active declaration of political support from any foreign source, never mind a historical American adversary, had been discovered ... Fox News would be demanding armed insurrection (I guess that would be the next step after "lock her up").

    And you know, it wouldn't be entirely crazy to do that. I cannot have more contempt for Trump Jr. You can't commit treason when we're not at war with a state you had dealings with. But he betrayed everything he claims to stand for when he (at least) failed to report Goldstone.

    Seriously. This is some fucked up shit. Doesn't matter who did it.
    Last edited by Singularity; 17th July 2017 at 08:24 AM.

  7. #777
    Chubby Member
    Joined
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,847
    Thanks
    1426

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Any fair-minded person has to has him/herself how they would feel about this if the political parties were switched. If you excuse behavior you'd condemn in someone else, you're a hypocrite.
    I've been trying to do that, even though Trump is a deplorable human being and it is disheartening that anybody would consider voting for him.

    For that reason, I tend to be more irritated than interested in the constant media noise about Trump being a Russian creature that sold our future to Putin, or whatever it is that is being alleged at one moment or another.

    Yet another "expert" steps up and gives an opinion on what they think about something...and the papers run it is a bombshell. It isn't. It's just some asshole pundit paid to have an opinion mouthing off.

    Not to mention that Jeb Bush enlisted that retired agent to dig dirt on Trump in the first place...how is that different? He's hired a foreigner to dig into the background of Trump in an effort to win an election. Trump...allegedly hired a foreigner to dig dirt on somebody so he could win an election, if I'm not mistaken.

    Jeb's commitment is well known. All we need is some evidence that his "former" MI6 agent still had ties to the British government, and literally Jeb would be guilty of exactly what Trump is relentlessly accused of.

    Nobody cares. Why? Because they hate Trump.

    Keep it rational, or we'll lose those last fingers hanging on to the edge of the cliff, that's my opinion.

  8. #778
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,893
    Thanks
    31154

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    I've been trying to do that, even though Trump is a deplorable human being and it is disheartening that anybody would consider voting for him.

    For that reason, I tend to be more irritated than interested in the constant media noise about Trump being a Russian creature that sold our future to Putin, or whatever it is that is being alleged at one moment or another.

    Yet another "expert" steps up and gives an opinion on what they think about something...and the papers run it is a bombshell. It isn't. It's just some asshole pundit paid to have an opinion mouthing off.
    Not sure what you're talking about here. People who are actual experts in the legal or political field aren't "pundits." If this is the only thing they ever get published about, it's their field of expertise. And when pundits' pronouncements are touted as a bombshell, it's generally a pundit who works for the side being attacked, so that IS significant.

    Not to mention that Jeb Bush enlisted that retired agent to dig dirt on Trump in the first place...how is that different?
    He didn't solicit a foreign government, whose inherent interests run counter to those of the US, no matter much they might be paid. The fact that an investigator happens to be foreign national isn't anything like the same thing.
    He's hired a foreigner to dig into the background of Trump in an effort to win an election. Trump...allegedly hired a foreigner to dig dirt on somebody so he could win an election, if I'm not mistaken.
    No. Foreign national does not equal foreign government. Also, Trump wasn't starting from zero, hiring someone to get something he specifically wanted. He was (through his son) agreeing to accept something a foreign government already wanted to give him.

    One more thing--Bush's payment to the foreign national was the full extent of his obligation to him. Trump was supposed to get this information for "free." What was the ultimate payment for services rendered? A continuing debt to a hostile foreign power.

    Jeb's commitment is well known. All we need is some evidence that his "former" MI6 agent still had ties to the British government, and literally Jeb would be guilty of exactly what Trump is relentlessly accused of.

    Nobody cares. Why? Because they hate Trump.
    No. Because your point is specious.

    Keep it rational, or we'll lose those last fingers hanging on to the edge of the cliff, that's my opinion.
    I agree, but to "keep it rational" you have to account for this flaw in your reasoning.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 17th July 2017 at 08:33 AM.

  9. #779
    You'll see what I can do Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    21,684
    Thanks
    13475

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by splansing View Post
    I've been trying to do that, even though Trump is a deplorable human being and it is disheartening that anybody would consider voting for him.

    For that reason, I tend to be more irritated than interested in the constant media noise about Trump being a Russian creature that sold our future to Putin, or whatever it is that is being alleged at one moment or another.
    The comments yesterday from his flak Sekulow are especially concerning, though. According to Sekulow, the Secret Service were present at the meeting and should have screened who was attending. The agency quickly corrected the record --- it does not examine or concern itself with a presidential candidate's invited guests under any circumstances. However, one of these is true:

    1) Sekulow was just throwing shit against the wall and the Secret Service wasn't there.
    2) The Secret Service was just at the building protecting Trump in another location, probably some distance away in the large structure, and didn't have any idea who was visiting or why.
    3) The Secret Service *was* there... but there is only one reason they would've been... Trump was there. Only he, at that point, was under their protection.

    If it's No. 3, batten down the hatches. Trump has insisted he was not there. Only one reason for him to do that.

  10. #780
    Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,754
    Thanks
    2245

    From
    In my mind
    Notice how Trump keeps playing it down saying any politician would go to that meeting, how it was normal?

    The closeted paranoid conspiracy theorist in me thinks he is simply smoothing the way for the day when he is outed as having attended the meeting.

    Just a theory.

Page 78 of 86 FirstFirst ... 28687677787980 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 21st May 2017, 05:49 PM
  2. Russian spies seek a White House source
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th February 2017, 11:41 AM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 3rd January 2017, 11:28 AM
  4. Poll: Fox News most trusted news source for 'accurate information'
    By Spookycolt in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 24th June 2014, 11:14 PM
  5. the government is selling your personal information
    By nonsqtr in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28th August 2013, 07:38 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed