Report: Trump's team had over 100 contacts with Russian Officials

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
71,768
60,694
So. Md.
So you are just speculating and when you claim that I must have been living on another planet, the answer would be yes, earth.

A professional? Tell that to the poor sap he ruined over the anthrax attacks.
I haven't ignored evidence that others have found. Like all the meetings members of Trump's campaign had with Russians during the election and then they all lied about having the meetings at all. Why would they lie about those meetings? That doesn't seem suspicious to you? Besides, I'm an anonymous person on an online forum. So what if I'm speculating based on info that has been available to me? Info about many of these meetings has been available for a couple of years. Why have you pretended these meetings are insignificant or that they didn't happen at all?
 
Likes: raj
Jul 2011
46,853
8,288
NYC
I haven't ignored evidence that others have found. Like all the meetings members of Trump's campaign had with Russians during the election and then they all lied about having the meetings at all. Why would they lie about those meetings? That doesn't seem suspicious to you? Besides, I'm an anonymous person on an online forum. So what if I'm speculating based on info that has been available to me? Info about many of these meetings has been available for a couple of years. Why have you pretended these meetings are insignificant or that they didn't happen at all?


What law was broken?


How come this question is so hard to answer?
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
71,768
60,694
So. Md.
What law was broken?


How come this question is so hard to answer?
I'm not sure yet. I'm depending on legal experts to inform me.

Giuliani is technically right that election collusion isn’t a precise legal term. (While we’re at it, election “meddling” isn’t either.) The U.S. code mostly uses the term “collusion” in antitrust laws to address crimes like price fixing.

But there are plenty of specific laws on the books that could apply if Trump’s presidential campaign is found to have collaborated with Moscow, including a conspiracy to defraud the United States. There are also laws against election fraud, computer hacking, wire fraud and falsifying records, if those apply.
AP FACT CHECK: Collusion not a crime? Not exactly the point.

You should read the whole article. The point is that while "collusion" isn't necessarily a legal term in relation to this case, lots of other things that may have been done while colluding could be crimes.
 
Oct 2018
1,881
2,367
Somewhere they can't find me.
Well that's easy, here watch you run.

What has he shown and what specific laws do you think he's shown trump to have broken. the law, Don't bother repeating a talking head and say "emoluments clause" or something vapid and empty as that.

It's funny, I can show and give examples of the exact laws hillary has broken and you all scream "nuh uh" but out of the other sides of your mouths you screech "trump broke laws" yet can't name one.

Morning, Rev.

A couple of questions this cold winter morning: At the time the Constitution was written, you do know that impeachment was the only way to remove a sitting president from office, right (although a second method has been added relatively recently)?

Do you know what basis is used in order to a president to be impeached?
 
Last edited:
Jul 2011
46,853
8,288
NYC
Morning, Rev.

A couple of questions this cold winter morning: At the time the Constitution was written, you do know that impeachment was the only way to remove a sitting president from office, right (although a second method has been relatively recently added)?

Do you know what basis is used in order to a president to be impeached? And, if so, what does that mean, specifically?


Yes.

yes.

Yes.



Make your point and I'll be happy to discuss. I don't do interviews. ;)
 
Oct 2018
1,881
2,367
Somewhere they can't find me.
Yes.

yes.

Yes.



Make your point and I'll be happy to discuss. I don't do interviews. ;)


My point is that the Framers specified that a president can be impeached after being found guilty of having committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." They did not list any specific laws that must be broken; it was intentionally left vague. So, what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in your opinion? Do you think collusion with a hostile foreign government to win the presidency and obstructing the investigation into that act might be covered by that?
 
Likes: Babba
Jul 2011
46,853
8,288
NYC
My point is that the Framers specified that a president can be impeached after being found guilty of having committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." They did not list any specific laws that must be broken; it was intentionally left vague. So, what constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" in your opinion? Do you think collusion with a hostile foreign government to win the presidency and obstructing the investigation into that act might be covered by that?


"crimes" and "misdemeanors" specifically indicate laws that would have to be broken. Please tell me a crime or a misdemeanor one can commit and be found guilty of that is not found in our law books.


as to your last question, if true you would need to show the laws broken.
 
Oct 2018
1,881
2,367
Somewhere they can't find me.
"crimes" and "misdemeanors" specifically indicate laws that would have to be broken. Please tell me a crime or a misdemeanor one can commit and be found guilty of that is not found in our law books.


as to your last question, if true you would need to show the laws broken.

Well, here's the statute: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They were pretty clear that treason and bribery were sufficient, but what do you suppose they meant buy the latter? It does not specify that any "laws that must be broken." And again, that was not a bug, it's a feature. It was intentionally left vague so it could be applied to extreme individual cases of malfeasance that may or may not violate any specific U.S. laws.
 
Jul 2011
46,853
8,288
NYC
Well, here's the statute: “The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They were pretty clear that treason and bribery were sufficient, but what do you suppose they meant buy the latter? It does not specify that any "laws that must be broken." And again, that was not a bug, it's a feature. It was intentionally left vague so it could be applied to extreme individual cases of malfeasance that may or may not violate any specific U.S. laws.



Please show me how one can be convicted of a crime that doesn't have a law behind it.
 
Oct 2018
1,881
2,367
Somewhere they can't find me.
Please show me how one can be convicted of a crime that doesn't have a law behind it.

Evidently, our Constitution makes exceptions for our nation's chief executive officers.

Here's one way how:

Generally, debate over the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors has split into two camps. The minority view is held by critics who undertake a literal reading of the Constitution. They maintain that high crimes means what it says—criminal activity—and argue that the Framers wanted only criminal activities to be the basis for impeachment. The generally accepted viewpoint is much broader. It defines high crimes and misdemeanors as any serious abuse of power—including both legal and illegal activities. Supporters of this reading believe that because impeachment is a public inquiry,first and fore-most, it is appropriate to read the phrase broadly in order to provide the most thorough inquiry possible. Thus, a civil officer may face impeachment for misconduct, violations of oath of office, serious incompetence, or, in the case of judges, activities that undermine public confidence or damage the integrity of the judiciary.

So, once again, I ask you:

Do you believe collusion with a hostile foreign government to win a presidential election and obstructing the investigation into that meets this definition?
 
Likes: Babba