Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on July 12, 2017, 10:27:54 AM
-
I keep hearing that the now-verified/admitted meeting with the Russian lawyer (understood by the Trump campaign to be an agent of the Kremlin) between TrumpJr, Kushner and Manafort is of no legal consequence. That’s all. No support for the naked conclusion, but that’s the talking point.
To recap, the story appears to be thus: Goldstone reaches out to TrumpJr and tells him that he can arrange a meeting with a “crown prosecutor†of Russia who has damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton.
I’ll offer the disclaimer that I’m no federal prosecutor, but I can read statutes and the narrative appears to violate various provisions of the US Code. Specifically, the following:
I. In corresponding with the “crown prosecutor†through Goldstone, the Trump campaign (through its agents) engaged in illegal private correspondence with a foreign government.
18 USC §953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
II. In falsifying (or “forgetting†multiple times) their paperwork and/or in their sworn statements before Congress regarding their contact with the foreign government. Trump campaign agents apparently violated TWO statutes:
18 USC §954. False statements influencing foreign government
Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, willfully and knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 USC §1621. Perjury generally
Whoever-
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
III. Anyone in the campaign who “coached†their testimony violating the two statutes
above or who advised on the information contained in their disclosures may have violated this one:
18 USC §1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
IV. If the discussion was about trading on emails illegally obtained from Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as Sec State then this statute was probably violated (and the downstream purchasers would be involved in a criminal conspiracy…regardless of efficacy of the transaction):
18 USC §1361. Government property or contracts
Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
V. Finally, even if the emails were not exchanged, the express promise to make a contribution of a thing of value (the promise to deliver the Hillary emails) violates this one (with bonus definitions!):
52 USC §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.
22 USC §611. Definitions
As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter-
(a) The term "person" includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;
(b) The term "foreign principal" includes-
(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
-
Serious question...
Can one be accused of attempted collusion? Because it sounds like that's what happened here, unless either my reading skills are bad (which I will disclose is a definite possibility) or we don't have the whole story.
-
Serious question...
Can one be accused of attempted collusion? Because it sounds like that's what happened here, unless either my reading skills are bad (which I will disclose is a definite possibility) or we don't have the whole story.
Collusion isn't really a criminal offense. It's a child of regulatory subversion.
We're talking actual crimes. The proper charge would be conspiracy to violate what appears to be a laundry list of federal statutes.
Read Paragraph V above closely. Even the promise to contribute the emails was a violation...and the conspiracy to receive them is a crime.
-
I. What the hell do you know about law?
27 USC §911.007
You need to stick to posting with which you are well versed, like...wait. Never mind.
-
You should work for the Washington post. They and their psychophants would appreciate all the time you wasted on this.
-
You should work for the Washington post. They and their psychophants would appreciate all the time you wasted on this.
Non-responsive/ad hominem.
Predictable.
-
Wes, when did DT Jr go under oath, for it to be perjury? Or have I watched too many lawyer movies, and have a misconception of what is really means?
-
Wes, when did DT Jr go under oath, for it to be perjury? Or have I watched too many lawyer movies, and have a misconception of what is really means?
All their disclosure documents are subject to an oath/affirmation of veracity. In addition, there is a continuing obligation of disclosure if any of their answers/responses should need amendment.
To the extent that Sessions (in his confirmation hearings) or any other campaign/administration official/agent testified in open court/before Congress about the campaign/admin's contacts with Russia or Russian agents, they are all on the block.
-
Thanks, Wes. Didn't know that.
My lawyering knowledge comes from Ted 2.
Objection!
-
All this reminds me of the Perry Mason episode "The Case of the Perjured Parrot" where the only witness to a rich man's murder is his parrot, who keeps repeating the suspect's name. But in court, everyone is surprised at what the bird says next. Perry does his magic at an informal coroner's Inquest in a rural area.
-
Non-responsive/ad hominem.
Predictable.
You are no better than Rachel Madcow. Digging through every parsed word and possible interpretation, lacing that with your own speculation and looking for some possible way to crucify this administration. In that you offer little more than Prowler. You just have a better vocabulary and bigger words.
I can (and will) engage with you on just about any other topic. Here? There's no point. You want Trump gone. You see everything only in the light that best reflects your unfulfilled desire. This lengthy spew of half baked legal research bears that out.
I'm sorry your gal didn't win. Get off the man's ass.
-
Collusion isn't really a criminal offense. It's a child of regulatory subversion.
We're talking actual crimes. The proper charge would be conspiracy to violate what appears to be a laundry list of federal statutes.
Read Paragraph V above closely. Even the promise to contribute the emails was a violation...and the conspiracy to receive them is a crime.
I don't know if the emails would fall into the category of "Thing of value" in the spirit of what the statute is trying to prohibit. I get where you're coming from and I think this was a shit move by DTJr all the way around. He's probably going to pay, and should. He's most likely the most susceptible on the perjury issue.
-
I don't know if the emails would fall into the category of "Thing of value" in the spirit of what the statute is trying to prohibit. I get where you're coming from and I think this was a shit move by DTJr all the way around. He's probably going to pay, and should. He's most likely the most susceptible on the perjury issue.
I agree with this. Using "thing of value" to mean dirt on your opponent is stretching...a lot. A "thing of value" is "We can't pay you money, but we can give you this original Van Gough." Not information you can't put a monetary value on...
-
So you are telling me jay sekulow is a legal hack?
-
Imo, it becomes a "thing of value" even more when the discussion turned to the Magnitsky Act. "Blackmail file" on Hillary for looking into and overturning the Magnitsky Act.
-
Imo, it becomes a "thing of value" even more when the discussion turned to the Magnitsky Act. "Blackmail file" on Hillary for looking into and overturning the Magnitsky Act.
This is why you don't get it.
If the presented reason for the meeting was to provide info on Hillary -- which at that time had no reasonable indication that it had been gathered by any other than legitimate means -- and it was as all agree then that's simply modus operandi. Clinton would have taken the meeting. So would Bernie. So would Obama. And Kennedy. And Lincoln. And carter. Well. Maybe not him. Nothing to see.
Should Trump's son have done the political thing and put layers between himself and the info? In the Washington world, probably so. But that's why we like and trust them. They aren't asking for the definition of the word "is" or wondering why Benghazi matters anyway. They aren't lying about servers and smashing phones with hammers. Maybe they aren't politically savvy. Maybe they make mistakes.
But by all accounts, when the topic turned? The meeting was over.
All of wes' Catfish Barger and Scott Moore charts aside, this is a giant zero. A fart in a dervish.
-
This is why you don't get it.
If the presented reason for the meeting was to provide info on Hillary -- which at that time had no reasonable indication that it had been gathered by any other than legitimate means -- and it was as all agree then that's simply modus operandi. Clinton would have taken the meeting. So would Bernie. So would Obama. And Kennedy. And Lincoln. And carter. Well. Maybe not him. Nothing to see.
Should Trump's son have done the political thing and put layers between himself and the info? In the Washington world, probably so. But that's why we like and trust them. They aren't asking for the definition of the word "is" or wondering why Benghazi matters anyway. They aren't lying about servers and smashing phones with hammers. Maybe they aren't politically savvy. Maybe they make mistakes.
But by all accounts, when the topic turned? The meeting was over.
All of wes' Catfish Barger and Scott Moore charts aside, this is a giant zero. A fart in a dervish.
Well put.
F this noise.
-
I agree with this. Using "thing of value" to mean dirt on your opponent is stretching...a lot. A "thing of value" is "We can't pay you money, but we can give you this original Van Gough." Not information you can't put a monetary value on...
I have thing of value I bet you would like to collude.
-
This place is becoming Facebook for our left wing tards!
-
If the presented reason for the meeting was to provide info on Hillary -- which at that time had no reasonable indication that it had been gathered by any other than legitimate means --
What legitimate means would that be? Unless Hillary voluntarily turned them over or their production was compelled via subpoena, then they were obtained illegitimately. That is to say: illegally.
-
I agree with this. Using "thing of value" to mean dirt on your opponent is stretching...a lot. A "thing of value" is "We can't pay you money, but we can give you this original Van Gough." Not information you can't put a monetary value on...
Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State? Valuable.
I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something. There is value in them.
The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black. There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.
-
What legitimate means would that be? Unless Hillary voluntarily turned them over or their production was compelled via subpoena, then they were obtained illegitimately. That is to say: illegally.
Huge speculation on your part. Yuuuuuuge.
At the time of the meeting, there was no public mention of any hacking or meddling or interference or any of that. For all they knew Hillary's camp and/or the DNC had approached their side (and likely did in reality) offering to trade favors. Zero reason to believe that the information was obtained through anything other than normal channels.
This is a clear instance of you applying your personal biases and making assumptions based on your own hopes and dreams. You see nefarious because that's what you desperately want to be true.
-
Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State? Valuable.
I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something. There is value in them.
The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black. There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.
Wrong.
You're again assuming something that's not based in reality.
Data dump of opponent's emails? Nope.
-
Perhaps not "emails" per se, but illegally obtained emails from the United States Secretary of State? Valuable.
I would also submit that in a race with stakes as high as the White House, a data dump of your opponent that significant would certainly be worth something. There is value in them.
The only reason we don't have a monetary dollar amount to pin on them, is because the market for them is entirely black. There are plenty of buyers for that kind of information, but none that want to be known as such.
I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.
I'm just calling balls & strikes here.
-
I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.
I'm just calling balls & strikes here.
Basically how I feel about all of this.
-
I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.
I'm just calling balls & strikes here.
The two situations are not analogous.
-
The two situations are not analogous.
I'm guessing your position really is whataboutism as I defined it.
Please explain why they're different.
-
What legitimate means would that be? Unless Hillary voluntarily turned them over or their production was compelled via subpoena, then they were obtained illegitimately. That is to say: illegally.
No where in anything that I have read, did the meeting or planned meeting talk about emails.
-
Basically how I feel about all of this.
Yep
-
I'm guessing your position really is whataboutism as I defined it.
Please explain why they're different.
1) Where did the meeting with the Ukranians happen?
2) Who initiated it?
3) Was information actually exchanged and how was it used?
4) How long did it go on (more than three years)
5) What was Clinton's position at the time?
6) What was the position of the people who were involved in the meetings?
There's a difference between a single non-meeting and a long history of exchanges/conversations/efforts
-
I got this to say about the whole mess.
https://youtu.be/cyWVPHoFGJA
-
No where in anything that I have read, did the meeting or planned meeting talk about emails.
Fair point. The phrase was "official documents." Which could be more damning.
-
I know "whataboutism" gets thrown around a lot, but in my opinion, it's just another word for "precedent", or not being a hypocrite. Why is the Clinton campaign getting dirt on Trump from Ukraine not apples-to-apples here? Opposition research is a ubiquitous part of American politics, and politicians are not offering up dirt on themselves consensually. The "whataboutism" applies, in my opinion, if the argument is that Clinton doing it is evil and treasonous, but the Trump doing it is a "nothingburger". And vice versa. I'm saying both are bad, both are unseemly, both are at least borderline unethical, but neither are illegal.
I'm just calling balls & strikes here.
I'm not absolving anyone, regardless of party. I'm simply laying DJTJr's own admissions alongside the applicable US Code provisions.
-
For me, this is bearing out the reason I was ambivalent to who won this election. I thought Trump was probably a smidge more terrible than Hillary all around, but that that would be at least counterbalanced by the fact that the media would actually hold him accountable for said terribleness, whereas I'm fairly positive any and all Clinton malfeasance would be poo-poo'ed as Fox News conspiracies. We probably wouldn't know about Ukraine, and no one would bother one tiny bit to look for it.
I do think they're overcorrecting even more than I expected, maybe even to a point that causes more harm than good as a whole. But I do still prefer a president be held to this level of scrutiny over allowing them to get away with any and everything with zero criticism.
-
For me, this is bearing out the reason I was ambivalent to who won this election. I thought Trump was probably a smidge more terrible than Hillary all around, but that that would be at least counterbalanced by the fact that the media would actually hold him accountable for said terribleness, whereas I'm fairly positive any and all Clinton malfeasance would be poo-poo'ed as Fox News conspiracies. We probably wouldn't know about Ukraine, and no one would bother one tiny bit to look for it.
I do think they're overcorrecting even more than I expected, maybe even to a point that causes more harm than good as a whole. But I do still prefer a president be held to this level of scrutiny over allowing them to get away with any and everything with zero criticism.
I almost agreed with you(felt a little dirty) until you said, "this level of scrutiny"!
This is not scrutinization. This is outright attacking. I too want ALL government to be held accountable, but this is not it.
-
I almost agreed with you(felt a little dirty) until you said, "this level of scrutiny"!
This is not scrutinization. This is outright attacking. I too want ALL government to be held accountable, but this is not it.
Yep. Scrutiny is looking at what happened not just making crap up because they mad.
-
Yep. Scrutiny is looking at what happened not just making crap up because they mad.
Junior published this all himself. There is no dispute that this happened.
-
Fair point. The phrase was "official documents." Which could be more damning.
"Official" to who though? The music publicist?
-
Junior published this all himself. There is no dispute that this happened.
"This" is nothing.
-
"This" is nothing.
I agree, it's nothing...compared to what's coming.
-
I agree, it's nothing...compared to what's coming.
So you didn't remove Bernie's dildo!
Good for you. Enjoy!
-
This is why you don't get it.
If the presented reason for the meeting was to provide info on Hillary -- which at that time had no reasonable indication that it had been gathered by any other than legitimate means -- and it was as all agree then that's simply modus operandi. Clinton would have taken the meeting. So would Bernie. So would Obama. And Kennedy. And Lincoln. And carter. Well. Maybe not him. Nothing to see.
Should Trump's son have done the political thing and put layers between himself and the info? In the Washington world, probably so. But that's why we like and trust them. They aren't asking for the definition of the word "is" or wondering why Benghazi matters anyway. They aren't lying about servers and smashing phones with hammers. Maybe they aren't politically savvy. Maybe they make mistakes.
But by all accounts, when the topic turned? The meeting was over.
All of wes' Catfish Barger and Scott Moore charts aside, this is a giant zero. A fart in a dervish.
AG Jeff Sessions is being questioned about the Russian money laundering case that was basically thrown out of court two days before trial, earlier this year (Russian lawyer, Natalie V., was happy about the outcome). That case was part of the meeting that Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort had with her.
Like I said, the "blackmail file on Hillary" becomes even more a thing of value when it's offered as trade.
-
With Summer in full swing and temperatures blazing, what better time for a good summer squash medley.
And lets face it folks - if you are gonna add an onion to the mix, its got to be a sweet vidalia. I like to tone down the lemon rind a tad and get more the subtle flavor with less zest. ENJOY!
2 large yellow squash (summer squash)
2 large zucchini
1 small onions, minced or 2 green onions, thinly sliced
1 teaspoon dried dill
1â„2 teaspoon grated fresh lemon rind
1â„4 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon lemon juice
Directions
Cut squash and zucchini crosswise into thick slices.
Saute onion in a large skillet in a small amount of olive oil until translucent, drain on a paper towel.
Add a small amount of water to the skillet andbring to a boil.
Add zucchini and summer squash, and boil 3 to 5 minutes ot until crisp -tender.
Drain.
Add remaining ingredients and onion, and toss.
-
With Summer in full swing and temperatures blazing, what better time for a good summer squash medley.
And lets face it folks - if you are gonna add an onion to the mix, its got to be a sweet vidalia. I like to tone down the lemon rind a tad and get more the subtle flavor with less zest. ENJOY!
2 large yellow squash (summer squash)
2 large zucchini
1 small onions, minced or 2 green onions, thinly sliced
1 teaspoon dried dill
1â„2 teaspoon grated fresh lemon rind
1â„4 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon lemon juice
Directions
Cut squash and zucchini crosswise into thick slices.
Saute onion in a large skillet in a small amount of olive oil until translucent, drain on a paper towel.
Add a small amount of water to the skillet andbring to a boil.
Add zucchini and summer squash, and boil 3 to 5 minutes ot until crisp -tender.
Drain.
Add remaining ingredients and onion, and toss.
Had this the other night. It was delicious.
-
With Summer in full swing and temperatures blazing, what better time for a good summer squash medley.
And lets face it folks - if you are gonna add an onion to the mix, its got to be a sweet vidalia. I like to tone down the lemon rind a tad and get more the subtle flavor with less zest. ENJOY!
2 large yellow squash (summer squash)
2 large zucchini
1 small onions, minced or 2 green onions, thinly sliced
1 teaspoon dried dill
1â„2 teaspoon grated fresh lemon rind
1â„4 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon lemon juice
Directions
Cut squash and zucchini crosswise into thick slices.
Saute onion in a large skillet in a small amount of olive oil until translucent, drain on a paper towel.
Add a small amount of water to the skillet andbring to a boil.
Add zucchini and summer squash, and boil 3 to 5 minutes ot until crisp -tender.
Drain.
Add remaining ingredients and onion, and toss.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation...some here dislike that.
-
You aren't adding anything to the conversation...some here dislike that.
Wrong.
Isn't it sad that squash adds more to this thread than anything you've posted? I was going to say you had summer squash for brains but I like squash.
-
Wrong.
Isn't it sad that squash adds more to this thread than anything you've posted? I was going to say you had summer squash for brains but I like squash.
And I hate squash.
-
And I hate squash.
What the wut?
-
Wrong.
Isn't it sad that squash adds more to this thread than anything you've posted? I was going to say you had summer squash for brains but I like squash.
Fuck you, shit for brains. How 'bout 'dat.
^^That adds more to the conversation than anything you've ever posted^^
-
You aren't adding anything to the conversation...some here dislike that.
You haven't added to a conversation in years dick nozzle
-
And just like that we are back in 5th grade.
-
And just like that we are back in 5th grade.
It's about a 4 year improvement over where we were.
-
And just like that we are back in 5th grade.
Talk to your boys, they continue to not add to the conversation while trying to diminish what I've posted.
Good thing about it, regardless if people like it or not, the FBI investigation into Trump and his staff is still ongoing...and Robert Mueller is hiring prosecutors.
-
Talk to your boys, they continue to not add to the conversation while trying to diminish what I've posted.
Good thing about it, regardless if people like it or not, the FBI investigation into Trump and his staff is still ongoing...and Robert Mueller is hiring prosecutors.
Your posts are self diminishing!
-
I think it's a bullshit pussy move to go recipe-posting on Prowler as if he were Birmingham or Greaseyweasel.
-
I think it's a bullshit pussy move to go recipe-posting on Prowler as if he were Birmingham or Greaseyweasel.
I'm more of an ignoring kind of guy but it's no more of a bullshit pussy move to engage in political debate with no real opinions of his own, literally copying and pasting shit and passing it off as his thoughts. Nor is it more of a bullshit pussy move that to engage in any type of debate without a working understanding of how debate works or even having the slightest understanding of fallacies.
At least with the recipes I come away with more knowledge.
-
I'm more of an ignoring kind of guy but it's no more of a bullshit pussy move to engage in political debate with no real opinions of his own, literally copying and pasting shit and passing it off as his thoughts. Nor is it more of a bullshit pussy move that to engage in any type of debate without a working understanding of how debate works or even having the slightest understanding of fallacies.
At least with the recipes I come away with more knowledge.
I think Shakespeare was being facetious but agreed.
-
Nor is it more of a bullshit pussy move that to engage in any type of debate without a working understanding of how debate works
I think your boy, Kaos, needs something for his brunch tomorrow. Got a nice cold pasta salad recipe?
-
I'm more of an ignoring kind of guy but it's no more of a bullshit pussy move to engage in political debate with no real opinions of his own, literally copying and pasting shit and passing it off as his thoughts. Nor is it more of a bullshit pussy move that to engage in any type of debate without a working understanding of how debate works or even having the slightest understanding of fallacies.
At least with the recipes I come away with more knowledge.
^
Mic dropped on wes.
#boomalicious
-
I think your boy, Kaos, needs something for his brunch tomorrow. Got a nice cold pasta salad recipe?
I don't like being your Viagra.
-
^
Mic dropped on wes.
#boomalicious
Leave Wes the hell alone, people!!!
-
I think your boy, Kaos, needs something for his brunch tomorrow. Got a nice cold pasta salad recipe?
I see like your boy, prowler, you don't actually read responses before hitting the reply button.
I'm more of an ignoring kind of guy but it's no more of a bullshit pussy move to engage in political debate with no real opinions of his own, literally copying and pasting shit and passing it off as his thoughts. Nor is it more of a bullshit pussy move that to engage in any type of debate without a working understanding of how debate works or even having the slightest understanding of fallacies.
At least with the recipes I come away with more knowledge.
I either comment on the entirety of the post or I ignore it completely. I don't post recipes.
Chad has consistently taken more shit in the political forum than anyone in the last 4 years. It's not even close. I can't think of once he was met with a recipe response because, agree or disagree, he can make an argument that people can read and actually have to think about.
-
Just for the record, is there anyone here who thinks I actually enjoy the level to which all of these political threads eventually devolve?
The problem as I see it (and to which I contribute) is that several of us come at this from different directions and because of the nature of the political beast we've become fairly intractable. We see things through the distorted lens of our own perceptions.
Example: Chizad said somewhere in here that he still found Clinton to be slightly better than Trump. I cannot reconcile that. He may have faults. She is evil incarnate. She is hillbilly corruption personified. In my mind, any criticism of Trump by Chizad already has two strikes for that reason.
And then there's the unbridled and perhaps unintended arrogance and insult spread by the repeated characterization of Trump supporters as uneducated, mindless rubes right down to the mocking faux accents. There's a good bit of hypocrisy tangled up in that, honestly. You don't get the moral, ethical and intellectual high ground because you say you didn't vote for Trump.
I know those of you who weren't alive will roll your eyes but it's exactly like being an Auburn fan in the 70s. There were times some people were hesitant to admit their allegiance because of the ridicule -- and sometimes even employment repercussions.
So that's the backdrop.
It's in my nature to argue. I learn things that way. I like to be challenged and forced to defend. This has gone beyond that.
I hate to say it but there's a massive igno-ball of nonsense spewing from one in particular that flattens my desire or willingness to respond with anything much beyond taunting. I shouldn't. Should ignore it. But it bleats the same half baked boobery as the freako nutbags. No respect for that because it isn't contributing to the discussion or giving me anything worthwhile to consider. It's the equivalent of a brain damaged parrot bellowing bits and pieces of crap it hears its drunken Marxist owner rant.
I'm guilty of taking the bait and dropping a slur. I wish things were different.
-
Hillary is a dyke slut and dangerous at any speed. However, I'd pay good money to see Johnny Wadd ass fuck her, Bill and Chelsea.
Not to change the subject, but two shit sammiches don't equal one MUFFuletta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db_qXKBle08
-
Just for the record, is there anyone here who thinks I actually enjoy the level to which all of these political threads eventually devolve?
The problem as I see it (and to which I contribute) is that several of us come at this from different directions and because of the nature of the political beast we've become fairly intractable. We see things through the distorted lens of our own perceptions.
Example: Chizad said somewhere in here that he still found Clinton to be slightly better than Trump. I cannot reconcile that. He may have faults. She is evil incarnate. She is hillbilly corruption personified. In my mind, any criticism of Trump by Chizad already has two strikes for that reason.
And then there's the unbridled and perhaps unintended arrogance and insult spread by the repeated characterization of Trump supporters as uneducated, mindless rubes right down to the mocking faux accents. There's a good bit of hypocrisy tangled up in that, honestly. You don't get the moral, ethical and intellectual high ground because you say you didn't vote for Trump.
I know those of you who weren't alive will roll your eyes but it's exactly like being an Auburn fan in the 70s. There were times some people were hesitant to admit their allegiance because of the ridicule -- and sometimes even employment repercussions.
So that's the backdrop.
It's in my nature to argue. I learn things that way. I like to be challenged and forced to defend. This has gone beyond that.
I hate to say it but there's a massive igno-ball of nonsense spewing from one in particular that flattens my desire or willingness to respond with anything much beyond taunting. I shouldn't. Should ignore it. But it bleats the same half baked boobery as the freako nutbags. No respect for that because it isn't contributing to the discussion or giving me anything worthwhile to consider. It's the equivalent of a brain damaged parrot bellowing bits and pieces of crap it hears its drunken Marxist owner rant.
I'm guilty of taking the bait and dropping a slur. I wish things were different.
Poor little pussy snowflake. The truth hurts doesn't it.
I've come to the conclusion that you and a staggering percentage of Republicans see absolutely nothing wrong with what Trump and his band of merry morons have done up to this point (that includes knowingly hiring a foreign agent and giving him high level clearance). As long as they have the red R next to their name, they could all commit treason, you'd rush to defend them. As I've said before, those that are party over Country are what's wrong with this Country.
-
Poor little pussy snowflake. The truth hurts doesn't it.
I've come to the conclusion that you and a staggering percentage of Republicans see absolutely nothing wrong with what Trump and his band of merry morons have done up to this point (that includes knowingly hiring a foreign agent and giving him high level clearance). As long as they have the red R next to their name, they could all commit treason, you'd rush to defend them. As I've said before, those that are party over Country are what's wrong with this Country.
^^^
Aaaaaaaaand..... a fucking idiot.
-
And just like that we are back in 5th grade.
With the same origin.
-
I think it's a bullshit pussy move to go recipe-posting on Prowler as if he were Birmingham or Greaseyweasel.
F. U. Asshat.
You calling someone a pussy.... with that post?- that is ironic.
You love to admonish and or censor what you don't personally like on here. If I had done that to kaos after one of his rants you wouldn't have said shit. But keep defending the village idiot. If you can't see the outrageousness of his posts that warrants an active ignoring of said posts then you are either blind or right there with him on his radical fringe and ridiculous views. The recipe bothers you but his ridiculous blabbering is cool. I'm not sure which is worse.
-
Fuck. You. Asshat.
You calling someone a pussy.
Ok. Wanna flesh that out?
-
Ok. Wanna flesh that out?
How dare you, you smug prick.
-
Ok. Wanna flesh that out?
There. Have at it. Btw you quoted it before it was done. Asshat.
You wanna fire a shot. Be able to take one back.
-
There. Have at it. Btw you quoted it before it was done. Asshat.
You wanna fire a shot. Be able to take one back.
I can take whatever you got, toots.
The tone of this board has gone from interesting, meaningful discussion to bleating out Trumpisms and refusal to engage.
Hate his style, hate his message, but at least Prowler is still trying to talk. Disagree? Try countering his argument.
This forum exists on a bit of a different plane, since the topics are ostensibly serious and we expect more of each other here. Lately it's an open-armed acceptance of anti-intellectualism and an embrace of all things anti-fact.
Again, I think the recipe treatment is the last refuge against a troll for a board that bans so seldom.
-
Lately it's an open-armed acceptance of anti-intellectualism and an embrace of all things anti-fact.
Agreed. On both sides.
It's what will be the down fall of America.
-
Agreed. On both sides.
It's what will be the down fall of America.
Yep. That and movie quotes.
-
Hate his style, hate his message, but at least Prowler is still trying to talk. Disagree? Try countering his argument.
Its like trying to respond to, "Therefore; Aliens"!
-
Its like trying to respond to, "Therefore; Aliens"!
So maybe try the Token method.
-
So maybe try the Token method.
I'm too old. Its like non alcoholic beer. Why bother!
-
I'm too old. Its like non alcoholic beer. Why bother!
Why bother to ignore?
-
I'm too old. Its like non alcoholic beer. Why bother!
So, your logic is that literally taking no action is more of a bother than typing out a non-response.
Fuck's sake.
-
So, your logic is that literally talking no action is more of a bother than typing out a non-response.
Fuck's sake.
You are turning into him.
Everything he has posted has been rebuffed over and over in some form or another. It gets to where everything he posts looks just like "underage hookers and blow"!
For 7 months now you guys have thrown anything and everything at Trump. He keeps kicking your ass over and over, yet, you come up with even more ridiculous stuff. Even if something were true, nobody would know.
THEREFORE: ALIENS!
You've lost the attention of Americans...And this board!
-
You are turning into him.
Everything he has posted has been rebuffed over and over in some form or another. It gets to where everything he posts looks just like "underage hookers and blow"!
For 7 months now you guys have thrown anything and everything at Trump. He keeps kicking your ass over and over, yet, you come up with even more ridiculous stuff. Even if something were true, nobody would know.
THEREFORE: ALIENS!
You've lost the attention of Americans...And this board!
We'll take the "ass kicking" you seem to think trump is doing to another thread...needless to say, I disagree.
Still, he'll quit posting...or evolve...if you don't engage.
-
Elvis sandwich
Spread peanut butter evenly on 1 slice of bread, then spread mashed banana on other slice, leaving a 1/4-inch border around edge. Close sandwich, gently pressing bread slices together.
Heat butter in an 8- to 10-inch heavy skillet over moderate heat until foam subsides, then fry sandwich, turning over once, until golden brown, about 2 minutes total.
Eat immediately with a knife and fork.
Go Trump Go!!! Woot
-
I can take whatever you got, toots.
The tone of this board has gone from interesting, meaningful discussion to bleating out Trumpisms and refusal to engage.
Hate his style, hate his message, but at least Prowler is still trying to talk. Disagree? Try countering his argument.
This forum exists on a bit of a different plane, since the topics are ostensibly serious and we expect more of each other here. Lately it's an open-armed acceptance of anti-intellectualism and an embrace of all things anti-fact.
Again, I think the recipe treatment is the last refuge against a troll for a board that bans so seldom.
You've lost your GOT damm mind.
The only thing anti-intellectual around here are the burbling shit posting from a panty-wadded Prowler and your inexplicable rush to his indefensible defense.
He has NO FUCKING ARGUMENT, wes. Not a cogent one at least. Carpet bombing nuisance links from luna-fringe sites is not an argument. It's not a position. It's not a stance.
Neither is bellowing asinine anti-Trump rhetoric.
That's 999.49873% of everything he posts.
"bleating out Trumpisms?" "Embracing anti-fact."
Poppyrot. That's left wing elitism oozing from your every pore. THAT comment, wes, is why there is no middle ground here. Nearly eight months in and you're still carrying the Hillary torch. It's not me. It's not even Prowler. Smell your own on this one.
We can't have a meaningful discussion because some people are so blatantly anti-Trump that they cannot craft a rational argument. And then there's an somebody throwing linky poo on top of that.
You talk about "expecting more" out of each other. That's condescending in its own way. I don't like your sanctimonious "do betters" when things aren't the way you think they should be. But I tolerate it. That's who you are. You tolerate (or did) my rants because that's who I am. Bark a little, make some snide comments, curse a bit and then laugh about it.
I like to sling insults occasionally because that's my nature. But they're not "serious." Hell Prowler and I have had off-site discussions about this. WE know who we are and what we're doing. Neither of us is mad at the other, there's no hard feelings. He thinks I'm wronger than fuck. I feel the same about him. End of story. End of the day, I'd still take a bullet for him because he's an Auburn guy. He may act like one of them occasionally, but he's ours.
I'm sick of having discussions about the discussions. We're going to start losing people if this doesn't stop. And I'm not talking about me or about Prowler.
-
We'll take the "ass kicking" you seem to think trump is doing to another thread...needless to say, I disagree.
Still, he'll quit posting...or evolve...if you don't engage.
We tried that. But somebody fucked it up. Even after being asked multiple times to take the shit somewhere else, it kept getting fucked up.
-
I can take whatever you got, toots.
The tone of this board has gone from interesting, meaningful discussion to bleating out Trumpisms and refusal to engage.
Hate his style, hate his message, but at least Prowler is still trying to talk. Disagree? Try countering his argument.
This forum exists on a bit of a different plane, since the topics are ostensibly serious and we expect more of each other here. Lately it's an open-armed acceptance of anti-intellectualism and an embrace of all things anti-fact.
Again, I think the recipe treatment is the last refuge against a troll for a board that bans so seldom.
Bro. Did you miss Godfather trying to have a serious conversation? Asking questions about his personal thoughts? He replied with copy/pasted comments from a basic google search. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this forum. And you are really going to say prowler is trying to talk?
That's bullshit Wes. I get where you are coming from on how ridiculous it has become to have decent arguments about politics on this specific forum, but don't act like people are ganging up on poor prowler and being recipe bullies because he's trying to speak his thoughts and we don't like them. He hasn't had an actual individual thought yet with any reasoning behind it. If anyone has ever deserved silence or recipe posts, it's him.
-
If someone could give me a new slant on a pork rub, I'd appreciate it. I've got a tried and true routine for most pork cuts, but I'm getting stale. Anyone got some different methods/rubs to spice up some ribs?
-
Bro. Did you miss Godfather trying to have a serious conversation? Asking questions about his personal thoughts? He replied with copy/pasted comments from a basic google search. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on this forum. And you are really going to say prowler is trying to talk?
That's bullshit Wes. I get where you are coming from on how ridiculous it has become to have decent arguments about politics on this specific forum, but don't act like people are ganging up on poor prowler and being recipe bullies because he's trying to speak his thoughts and we don't like them. He hasn't had an actual individual thought yet with any reasoning behind it. If anyone has ever deserved silence or recipe posts, it's him.
You're talking about Godfather's post about naming three positive things that Obama did. I did research and I named the top three things that he did. No where in his question did he state that I couldn't look anything up. But, yet, here you are blabbing like a retard as if that wasn't hashed out in that post. Stay in your lane.
Btw, the FBI investigation is still going into Trump and his admin.
-
You're talking about Godfather's post about naming three positive things that Obama did. I did research and I named the top three things that he did. No where in his question did he state that I couldn't look anything up. But, yet, here you are blabbing like a retard as if that wasn't hashed out in that post. Stay in your lane.
If you were driving drunk, speeding, whatever and he pulled you over, could he take you in?
Or, would you actually slap him around like you claim in the pm's.
-
You're talking about Godfather's post about naming three positive things that Obama did. I did research and I named the top three things that he did. No where in his question did he state that I couldn't look anything up. But, yet, here you are blabbing like a retard as if that wasn't hashed out in that post. Stay in your lane.
Btw, the FBI investigation is still going into Trump and his admin.
I think the push back that you took came from the impression that it wasn't an original thought. If you have to research the google'd chromes just to come up with somebody else's perception of what Obama did that was positive, it doesn't look like you had any thoughts on the matter yourself.
We've seen you post numerous, presumably personal, takes on socialism. This is strictly my opinion, and you can tell me where to shove that opinion if you like, but I think you'd be much better served to engage in debate about that than making 90% of your posts like that last line. "Trump being investigated" has literally been going on since the day he announced his candidacy. It's been going on so long now that very few people put credence in it anymore. Something may come of it, who knows? But many are sick of it and I think most on here would be happy to step back from that and debate actual political views for a change.
Again, just my opinion. One I'm sure I can shove.
-
#1 - Practically all politicians are crooked and break laws we are supposed to obey.
#2 - I could get two shits if Trump Jr. colluded with the Russians, hell the Russians don't owe gazillions of rubles in foreign debt.
#3 -If the Clintons are not indicted for their crimes, then what makes the snowflakes think the Donald and family will be indicted for crimes they may or may not have committed?
#4 - What's the kickoff time for the Auburn-LSU game this year?
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/9AiXzec3fsUXC/giphy.gif)
-
#1 - Practically all politicians are crooked and break laws we are supposed to obey.
#2 - I could get two shits if Trump Jr. colluded with the Russians, hell the Russians don't owe gazillions of rubles in foreign debt.
#3 -If the Clintons are not indicted for their crimes, then what makes the snowflakes think the Donald and family will be indicted for crimes they may or may not have committed?
#4 - What's the kickoff time for the Auburn-LSU game this year?
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/9AiXzec3fsUXC/giphy.gif)
#1 Yup.
#2 Moving goalpost.
#3 Clintons suicide people that have any dirt on them.
#4 2 hours after Tigerwalk.
-
You're talking about Godfather's post about naming three positive things that Obama did. I did research and I named the top three things that he did. No where in his question did he state that I couldn't look anything up. But, yet, here you are blabbing like a retard as if that wasn't hashed out in that post. Stay in your lane.
Btw, the FBI investigation is still going into Trump and his admin.
This is what I'm talking about. In that thread, you gave an OPINION that Obama would eventually be one of the best presidents ever. Godfather asked you to specifically name 3 things Obama did. THEN you did research. You didn't do research before you made your opinion, you just spouted off some bullshit that believed to be fact but had 0 research to make that opinion BEFORE you said it. Then when you were called on it, you literally googled the questioned he asked and gave the top 3 answers.
I don't have a problem at all with research. That's how opinions are formed. We all research, or at least we should. But for the love of God, if you are going to continue engaging in ANY type of debate, do your research to FORM your opinion. Not after you get asked why it is your opinion. Also, AFTER you have researched to form your opinion, google "logical fallacies" before you make your argument to see if you can find a flaw in it. It will make you smarter and make your argument easier to understand. It will make me smarter to see your actual position and how you got there. That's how debates work. That's the entire point of debate. It isn't to scream as loud as you can about how right you are and how wrong others are, it's to sway my opinion towards yours, or at the very least help me understand and respect why it's your opinion.
Last thing, if you are serious about your political position (and I believe you are) quit making click bait ad worthy comments and posts. You aren't helping yourself at all. Or you can just call me a gutter whore piece of trash retard and keep banging that keyboard. Football season is approaching and I need some new gamely recipes.
-
This is what I'm talking about. In that thread, you gave an OPINION that Obama would eventually be one of the best presidents ever. Godfather asked you to specifically name 3 things Obama did. THEN you did research. You didn't do research before you made your opinion, you just spouted off some bullshit that believed to be fact but had 0 research to make that opinion BEFORE you said it. Then when you were called on it, you literally googled the questioned he asked and gave the top 3 answers.
I don't have a problem at all with research. That's how opinions are formed. We all research, or at least we should. But for the love of God, if you are going to continue engaging in ANY type of debate, do your research to FORM your opinion. Not after you get asked why it is your opinion. Also, AFTER you have researched to form your opinion, google "logical fallacies" before you make your argument to see if you can find a flaw in it. It will make you smarter and make your argument easier to understand. It will make me smarter to see your actual position and how you got there. That's how debates work. That's the entire point of debate. It isn't to scream as loud as you can about how right you are and how wrong others are, it's to sway my opinion towards yours, or at the very least help me understand and respect why it's your opinion.
Last thing, if you are serious about your political position (and I believe you are) quit making click bait ad worthy comments and posts. You aren't helping yourself at all. Or you can just call me a gutter whore piece of trash retard and keep banging that keyboard. Football season is approaching and I need some new gamely recipes.
Rack him!
Nicely done.
-
Rack him!
Nicely done.
Not sure if you've ever heard of this word called "antithesis" or not.
What he says up there pretty much skewers the place you've been standing for a while.
I like what Token said but I'm also willing to allow personal experience -- if definable -- to substitute for "research" in some cases. By its very nature, research can be and often is deeply flawed. Far too many -- including those hailed as scientific observers -- begin with a hypothesis and work backward to prove it, frequently ignoring or devaluing anything that contradicts. I can provide "research" that postulates Hillary is an alien. Or at least banged one. Look at global warming or change or cooling or whatever fear mongering term is being bandied about. There is ample research to trash either side of that debate.
Personal experience, though? That's the basis for me. I take what I see and what I know and then review events through that filter. It's why I tolerate and understand Trump.
So even if Prowler could take a position and say "I support this position because Ive experienced XY&Z" then I could work with that. But no.
-
XY&Z was one of the worst experiences of my life.
-
You guys are off your rocker if you think there can be any kind of civil discourse with that freaking whackadoodle!
-
I will continue to post links. To those that dislike it, SUCK MY DICK...fucking snowflakes.
-
I will continue to post links. To those that dislike it, SUCK MY DICK...fucking snowflakes.
You stay classy, Prowler.
-
If you were driving drunk, speeding, whatever and he pulled you over, could he take you in?
Or, would you actually slap him around like you claim in the pm's.
What the fuck are you smoking? If I have a problem with someone I'd tell them and it'd be dealt with. I've never been the type to say shit behind someone's back.
-
This is what I'm talking about. In that thread, you gave an OPINION that Obama would eventually be one of the best presidents ever. Godfather asked you to specifically name 3 things Obama did. THEN you did research. You didn't do research before you made your opinion, you just spouted off some bullshit that believed to be fact but had 0 research to make that opinion BEFORE you said it. Then when you were called on it, you literally googled the questioned he asked and gave the top 3 answers.
I don't have a problem at all with research. That's how opinions are formed. We all research, or at least we should. But for the love of God, if you are going to continue engaging in ANY type of debate, do your research to FORM your opinion. Not after you get asked why it is your opinion. Also, AFTER you have researched to form your opinion, google "logical fallacies" before you make your argument to see if you can find a flaw in it. It will make you smarter and make your argument easier to understand. It will make me smarter to see your actual position and how you got there. That's how debates work. That's the entire point of debate. It isn't to scream as loud as you can about how right you are and how wrong others are, it's to sway my opinion towards yours, or at the very least help me understand and respect why it's your opinion.
Last thing, if you are serious about your political position (and I believe you are) quit making click bait ad worthy comments and posts. You aren't helping yourself at all. Or you can just call me a gutter whore piece of trash retard and keep banging that keyboard. Football season is approaching and I need some new gamely recipes.
This is a GOD DAMN MESSAGE BOARD...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!?!?
I posted an opinion that Obama will be considered one of the best Presidents we have ever had. (It's a fucking goddamn message board)
Godfather asked that I name three things he has done. I then did the research to give him 3 specific things...AND? (Again, it's a fucking goddamn message board).
You're the one that's apparently butthurt over the 3 things that one of the greatest Presidents, Barack Hussein Obama, did. Imagine if Barack Obama had followed the uncontrolled forest fire of Trump's White House...they'd put him on Mount Rushmore the first year in office.
-
You stay classy, Prowler.
Keep scrolling if you dislike links to NYT or Washington Post...you know, real news, not the Faux New/Briebart/National Enquire/Alex Jones (Trump's News).
-
Hate his style, hate his message, but at least Prowler is still trying to talk. Disagree? Try countering his argument.
We do. Thread after thread after thread. As soon as you make a well thought out and well worded post with actual facts that refutes whatever he said, he's never to be seen again and just pops up in another thread saying the same exact thing. Rinse and repeat. In a few threads I've even called him out and told him I was waiting on a reply, and nothing. That is how we have arrived at this point, IMO. You can't have a discussion with someone who A) doesn't think for themselves and B) doesn't understand what they are posting, because A.
-
I keep hearing that the now-verified/admitted meeting with the Russian lawyer (understood by the Trump campaign to be an agent of the Kremlin) between TrumpJr, Kushner and Manafort is of no legal consequence. That’s all. No support for the naked conclusion, but that’s the talking point.
To recap, the story appears to be thus: Goldstone reaches out to TrumpJr and tells him that he can arrange a meeting with a “crown prosecutor†of Russia who has damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton.
I’ll offer the disclaimer that I’m no federal prosecutor, but I can read statutes and the narrative appears to violate various provisions of the US Code. Specifically, the following:
I. In corresponding with the “crown prosecutor†through Goldstone, the Trump campaign (through its agents) engaged in illegal private correspondence with a foreign government.
18 USC §953. Private correspondence with foreign governments
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
II. In falsifying (or “forgetting†multiple times) their paperwork and/or in their sworn statements before Congress regarding their contact with the foreign government. Trump campaign agents apparently violated TWO statutes:
18 USC §954. False statements influencing foreign government
Whoever, in relation to any dispute or controversy between a foreign government and the United States, willfully and knowingly makes any untrue statement, either orally or in writing, under oath before any person authorized and empowered to administer oaths, which the affiant has knowledge or reason to believe will, or may be used to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government, or of any officer or agent of any foreign government, to the injury of the United States, or with a view or intent to influence any measure of or action by the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the injury of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 USC §1621. Perjury generally
Whoever-
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
III. Anyone in the campaign who “coached†their testimony violating the two statutes
above or who advised on the information contained in their disclosures may have violated this one:
18 USC §1622. Subornation of perjury
Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
IV. If the discussion was about trading on emails illegally obtained from Hillary Clinton in her official capacity as Sec State then this statute was probably violated (and the downstream purchasers would be involved in a criminal conspiracy…regardless of efficacy of the transaction):
18 USC §1361. Government property or contracts
Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:
If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
V. Finally, even if the emails were not exchanged, the express promise to make a contribution of a thing of value (the promise to deliver the Hillary emails) violates this one (with bonus definitions!):
52 USC §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.
22 USC §611. Definitions
As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter-
(a) The term "person" includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;
(b) The term "foreign principal" includes-
(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;
(2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Paragraphs IV and V for your reconsideration.
Connect dots from stolen emails....to meetings predicated on transfer of the illegal info.
-
Paragraphs IV and V for your reconsideration.
Connect dots from stolen emails....to meetings predicated on transfer of the illegal info.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Tbo1TQn4T9xFC/giphy.gif)
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Tbo1TQn4T9xFC/giphy.gif)
I don't know if the FBI can successfully prosecute the Russians charged, but even if they take a "default" judgment (or whatever the criminal equivalent is) they've laid the predicate for the rest of the statutes above to come crashing down on the Trump team/administration.
-
Are we back to Russia rigs the election by stealing documents showing the DNC trying to rig the election and Trump having no connection to it whatsoever? Feels like this...exactly where we were last July...
-
Are we back to Russia rigs the election by stealing documents showing the DNC trying to rig the election and Trump having no connection to it whatsoever? Feels like this...exactly where we were last July...
They are going to will it to happen.
-
I don't know if the FBI can successfully prosecute the Russians charged, but even if they take a "default" judgment (or whatever the criminal equivalent is) they've laid the predicate for the rest of the statutes above to come crashing down on the Trump team/administration.
Such ridiculous nonsense.
Do you even hear yourself?
-
Such ridiculous nonsense.
Do you even hear yourself?
Do you?
-
Do you?
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/24407617/shut-the-hell-up-you-drugged-up-communist.jpg)
-
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/24407617/shut-the-hell-up-you-drugged-up-communist.jpg)
Which corrupt president do you like more? Trump, Nixon, or Reagan?
-
Which corrupt president do you like more? Trump, Nixon, or Reagan?
All of them are better than any of your commies.
Don't you have some free shit to be getting somewhere?
-
Don't you have some free shit to be getting somewhere?
No. That's why he mad. The free store is closed.
Trump expects him to work for it, but get taxed less so he actually DOES get free money (his money). He no like that.
-
No. That's why he mad. The free store is closed.
Trump expects him to work for it, but get taxed less so he actually DOES get free money (his money). He no like that.
You never answered my question. Which corrupt president do you like more; Trump, Nixon, or Reagan?
-
You never answered my question. Which corrupt president do you like more; Trump, Nixon, or Reagan?
I like them all you communist twit.
-
I hope to not offend anyone. But Prowler certainly isn’t the only idiot on here. Is he the chief idiot? Of course he is. He’s dumb as a box of rocks.
And that’s coming from someone who is intellectually disabled.
-
I hope to not offend anyone. But Prowler certainly isn’t the only idiot on here. Is he the chief idiot? Of course he is. He’s dumb as a box of rocks.
And that’s coming from someone who is intellectually disabled.
(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/what-you-talkin-bout-willis-gif-8.gif)
-
(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/what-you-talkin-bout-willis-gif-8.gif)
It seems like 25-30 dumbasses spoil it for the rest of us.
But if the question is: “Who's the dumbest of them all?†The correct answer is definitely Prowler.
-
I like them all you communist twit.
Oh I knew you did, I just wanted you to announce to the board that you like corrupt Presidents and Nixon, Reagan, & Trump are among the top corrupt presidents (Trump's corruption is beginning to be uncovered, he won't be welcome here afterwards).
-
Oh I knew you did, I just wanted you to announce to the board that you like corrupt Presidents and Nixon, Reagan, & Trump are among the top corrupt presidents (Trump's corruption is beginning to be uncovered, he won't be welcome here afterwards).
I'd call you an idiot, but I don't want to insult the mentally challenged by comparing them to you.
You're F'n A right I liked Ronald Reagan. One of the greatest presidents in American history. And if you think Nixon was more corrupt than Shrillary or Bernie the Aardvark, I'd like for you to invest the money you'll get back in tax breaks this year in a luxury condominium I'm building on some beachfront property I've got in Ottumwa Iowa.
Eat a dick covered in stale peanut butter and stuffed in a sock, you communist.
-
I'd call you an idiot, but I don't want to insult the mentally challenged by comparing them to you.
You're F'n A right I liked Ronald Reagan. One of the greatest presidents in American history. And if you think Nixon was more corrupt than Shrillary or Bernie the Aardvark, I'd like for you to invest the money you'll get back in tax breaks this year in a luxury condominium I'm building on some beachfront property I've got in Ottumwa Iowa.
Eat a dick covered in stale peanut butter and stuffed in a sock, you communist.
Awwww...you didn't like that bit of truth did ya. You putz.
-
Damn! Seven pages and I haven't seen one statue yet. What the hell? Where are the boobies? Wait. I see them.........nevermind.
-
Awwww...you didn't like that bit of truth did ya. You putz.
You wouldn't know truth if it was 20 feet tall, wore a gold chain with a medallion that read Truth and announced itself as Truth once an hour every hour for 730 consecutive days on every television station on earth.
Numbnuts communist bitch.
-
You wouldn't know truth if it was 20 feet tall, wore a gold chain with a medallion that read Truth and announced itself as Truth once an hour every hour for 730 consecutive days on every television station on earth.
Numbnuts communist bitch.
It’s going a bit far calling prowler a numbnuts.
-
Damn! Seven pages and I haven't seen one statue yet.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/95/f5/0e95f514109a9eede7d972302348d2c3.jpg)
-
Relevant bump in light of Trump's tweet admitting knowledge of the "who" and "why" of the meeting.
That's an admission of violation of 52 USC §30121.
-
Relevant bump in light of Trump's tweet admitting knowledge of the "who" and "why" of the meeting.
That's an admission of violation of 52 USC §30121.
Wishful thinking.
-
Wishful thinking.
That it'll amount to any prosecutorial action? Perhaps.
That he hasn't outlined an admission of each element of the crime? Not at all.
-
Wishful thinking.
He’s gotta be exhausted running this double witch hunt with The Donald and Urban.
-
That it'll amount to any prosecutorial action? Perhaps.
That he hasn't outlined an admission of each element of the crime? Not at all.
That you've stretched the wording to apply in a way that works for you?
Yes. Completely.
You'd do great as a contributor to CNN or MSNBC living out your fantasies of overthrow.