Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

so if trump knew about the meeting don jr took where hacked, compromising information on clinton was being offered, is that not conspiracy/collusion? what is it then?

witch hunt I believe is the term of choice among the denialists
 
[tw]1021463630259343360[/tw]

this is so ****ing stupid it hurts.
no wonder you posted it.
it's not about "being more belligerent and escalating with russia." it's about holding them accountable for their actions. aren't you all about that? or not when it doesn't help your side politically?

trump talks tough with all of our allies who have actually done stuff for us. with putin and russia, he's soft as cottonelle. no bull**** bluster, no tough talk. he not only won't hold them accountable for their actions and continued actions, he'll sit there and say they didn't do it.

nothing at all to see, tho. all normal stuff.
 
lying at every single turn about every single possible issue is all normal stuff. no issues and nothing to see here. that's all OK. just keep the racist propaganda alive and well, and they can do anything they want.

sturg would feel the exact same way if this were a democrat.
 
Nunberg also said a few months ago that Trump knew about the meeting beforehand. He greenlighted it.

he tweeted about emails like 10 minutes after the meeting ended. right after don jr called a blocked number.

the fact the media seemed to believe and move on from trump knowing about it is a joke.
 
ofc he did. this has been obvious from the start. of course he's lying, of course his son is lying. they've been caught lying about literally every single aspect of this from the very start, and the story changes every time they get caught. don jr lied in official testimony.

the media is so, so soft on trump it's insane.

yes...it has been pretty obvious from the start...much of the collaboration with the Russians happened in broad daylight...only those who willfully averted their gaze couldn't see it
 
DATA:
///



§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals ( 52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

(a)Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1)Disbursement has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(d).

(2)Donation has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(e).

(3)Foreign national means -

(i) A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or

(ii) An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,

(iii)Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).

(4)Knowingly means that a person must:

(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;

(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or

(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.

(5) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:

(i) The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;

(ii) The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;

(iii) The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or

(iv) The contributor or donor resides abroad.

(6)Solicit has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m).

(7)Safe Harbor. For purposes of paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section, a person shall be deemed to have conducted a reasonable inquiry if he or she seeks and obtains copies of current and valid U.S. passport papers for U.S. citizens who are contributors or donors described in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. No person may rely on this safe harbor if he or she has actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted, or received is a foreign national.

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:

(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or

(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

(d)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See 11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.

(e)Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.

(f)Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

(h)Providing substantial assistance.

(1) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section.

(2) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making of an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement prohibited by paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.

(i)Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities. A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

(j)Donations by foreign nationals to inaugural committees. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a donation to an inaugural committee, as defined in 11 CFR 104.21(a)(1). No person shall knowingly accept from a foreign national any donation to an inaugural committee.
 
yes, every country tries to influence other country's elections. That is a fact

The catch being accepting that influence ( or even being aware of it and not reporting it ? ) is against the law.
Cooperating with that foreign entity is text book collusion / conspiracy to commit ...

Please stop with the inane argument of everybody does it.
 
yes, every country tries to influence other country's elections. That is a fact

The catch being accepting that influence ( or even being aware of it and not reporting it ? ) is against the law.
Cooperating with that foreign entity is text book collusion / conspiracy to commit ...

Please stop with the inane argument of everybody does it.

there is also the small matter that Russia is not a friend...it is a hostile power acting to advance its interests at our expense and the expense of our allies
 
yes, every country tries to influence other country's elections. That is a fact

The catch being accepting that influence ( or even being aware of it and not reporting it ? ) is against the law.
Cooperating with that foreign entity is text book collusion / conspiracy to commit ...

Please stop with the inane argument of everybody does it.

Cool so if it can be proved that Hillary Clinton knew that the dossier came from Russia would you be in favor of charging her?
 
I like the fact that Michael Cohen was so deeply loyal to Trump, "I'll take a bullet for him," that he secretly recorded their conversations just in case.

I hope he doesn't end up taking an actual bullet for him.
 
Cool so if it can be proved that Hillary Clinton knew that the dossier came from Russia would you be in favor of charging her?

sure...if Hillary Clinton collaborated with the Russians on a dossier designed to undermine our democratic processes she should definitely be charged with conspiracy and whatever other crime we can find in the legal code

i might add that the DoJ and other government agencies have a duty to investigate and prosecute such crimes if there is any evidence...and that the DoJ and other law enforcement agencies are under the control of the president and his appointees...if there is evidence of Hillary engaging in such collaboration and they fail to investigate and prosecute then they are failing in their duty to protect our democratic processes
 
Last edited:
Though I've often, over the past half-year or so, been critical of the Democrat's (and news media's) over-focus on This Russia Issue, and likewise felt it was a kind of canard to distract from more important issues (the epic party-wide failure of both vision and organization, on the one side; actual deleterious policy—hell, the spectre of the AHCA still hangs over us—on the other side), I will say that it's finally at the point now that I'll give it one (out of five) bags of popcorn.

from page 2 of this thread

2 bags?
 
Back
Top