General / Off-Topic Trump: Legal Issues (was The Testimony of James Comey)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Adept

Adept
Robin of Spiritwood said:
Man, there's ONE person here who cannot see the obvious.
It's like you're driving with a flat, and everybody else can tell.
Click to expand...

The only explanation I can see is that for some people the world is black and white. Democrats are the enemy, that's what really matters.

I suspect they aren't great at evidence based thinking to start with, but accepting that they were lied to, that they were wrong, is just pychologically unacceptable,

That means all contradictory information must be rejected, and any explanation, however bizarre, that shifts the blame to the opposition must be true.

The fundamental truth is that democrats are bad, deceitful and evil. Anything else is just details, and leftie intellectual trickery, trying to confuse you from the primary truth. Vote Republican! MAGA!
 

Deleted member 115407

D
sleutelbos said:
Glad to hear it. First time I heared of this practice was two years ago. Check this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
Click to expand...

Thanks. Had never seen this.

It's one of the things that that the left and right generally agree on. Unfortunately, it's not a hot enough topic for the people to put a stop to it.

Just remember two things...

[1] If a police officer asks if he can search your car, the answer is "No." (Or the more polite "No, officer, I don't consent to any searches.")
[2] If a police officer asks if you have (a large sum of money, anything illegal, etc.) in your car, the answer is "What I have in my car is none of your goddamn business." (Actually, it's just "I decline to answer any of your questions, officer.")

On the bright side, probably about 95% of police stops in this country are carried out legally and without unreasonable search or seizure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robin of Spiritwood

Robin of Spiritwood
Bad News for McCain

This info is only tangentially connected but I'll post it here:
John McCain has been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, a spider like cancer of his brain.

He's 80, and probably won't be able to return to his duties as a Senator. The diagnosis was made as doctors extracted a clot from the brain some days aback.

I had an uncle die from this last year. May the Senator do much better, but realistically this is the final stage of his long colorful and distinguished life. He was one of the Republican candidates for President in the past, conducting an ethical and decent campaign.

The American Government shall not be the same.
 

Deleted member 115407

D
Robin of Spiritwood said:
This info is only tangentially connected but I'll post it here:
John McCain has been diagnosed with a glioblastoma, a spider like cancer of his brain.

He's 80, and probably won't be able to return to his duties as a Senator. The diagnosis was made as doctors extracted a clot from the brain some days aback.

I had an uncle die from this last year. May the Senator do much better, but realistically this is the final stage of his long colorful and distinguished life. He was one of the Republican candidates for President in the past, conducting an ethical and decent campaign.

The American Government shall not be the same.
Click to expand...

That unfortunate news. The man is too moderate for my tastes, but sad new nonetheless.
 

Robin of Spiritwood

Robin of Spiritwood
Appeasement

www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels

Just days after the secret talk with Putin, Trump cedes geopolitical position.

In the interview with the NYT, he claims they discussed " adoptions" at that meeting.
That's the same claim made by Don jr.

Can't these guys come up with different alibis?
Or is the bloodthirsty Russian Empire suddenly obsessed with poor orphans?

Nope, "adoptions" means sanctions. it's all about lifting sanctions, so that Russian baby adoptions can be restarted, because the kind Russians are using their own orphans as leverage.

T is for Traitor, that's good enough for meeee
Oh, Treason Treason Treason starts with T.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 115407

D
Robin of Spiritwood said:
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels

Just days after the secret talk with Putin, Trump cedes geopolitical position.

In the interview with the NYT, he claims they discussed " adoptions" at that meeting.
That's the same claim made by Don jr.

Can't these guys come up with different alibis?
Or is the bloodthirsty Russian Empire suddenly obsessed with poor orphans?

Nope, "adoptions" means sanctions. it's all about lifting sanctions, so that Russian baby adoptions can be restarted, because the kind Russians are using their own orphans as leverage.

T is for Traitor, that's good enough for meeee
Oh, Treason Treason Treason starts with T.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you think that's illegal?

Is the president somehow not empowered to end the covert CIA operation that the article speaks of? Or is he not allowed to have private meetings with foreign dignitaries? Or is he somehow obligated to fully disclose the content of all conversations he has with foreign dignitaries?

I'm trying really hard to understand your position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robin of Spiritwood

Robin of Spiritwood
vindelanos said:
I don't understand why you think that's illegal?

Is the president somehow not empowered to end the covert CIA operation that the article speaks of? Or is he not allowed to have private meetings with foreign dignitaries? Or is he somehow obligated to fully disclose the content of all conversations he has with foreign dignitaries?

I'm trying really hard to understand your position.
Click to expand...

He's selling out the geopolitical positions of a superpower unilaterally, in exchange for whatever direct payment or inducement or blackmail that is being wielded by Vlad.

The Russians drink your milkshake. They take your sovereignty a little piece at a time.

The US supported rebels on the ground? They're probably dead ducks now. In exchange for $ in Trumps account, or withholding some dirt on him, or something HE gained. At the cost of his own nation's interests.
 
Last edited:

GJ51

GJ51
vindelanos said:
I don't understand why you think that's illegal?

Is the president somehow not empowered to end the covert CIA operation that the article speaks of? Or is he not allowed to have private meetings with foreign dignitaries? Or is he somehow obligated to fully disclose the content of all conversations he has with foreign dignitaries?

I'm trying really hard to understand your position.
Click to expand...

So is he...

If Obama talked to someone it was diplomacy, but if Trump talks to the same person - it's Treason.

Can't make it up...

With NO evidence

Of course then there's the small obstacle of actually understanding the definition of Treason as defined by the nagging thing - the law.

From the Washington Post of all places:

"But enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies. (Indeed, a treason prosecution naming Russia as an enemy would be tantamount to a declaration of war.) Russia is a strategic adversary whose interests are frequently at odds with those of the United States, but for purposes of treason law it is no different than Canada or France or even the American Red Cross. The details of the alleged connections between Russia and Trump officials are therefore irrelevant to treason law."

Sorry to disappoint everyone
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 115407

D
Robin of Spiritwood said:
He's selling out the geopolitical positions of a superpower unilaterally, in exchange for whatever direct payment or inducement or blackmail that is being wielded by Vlad.

The Russians drink your milkshake. They take your sovereignty a little piece at a time.

The US supported rebels on the ground? They're probably dead ducks now. In exchange for $ in Trumps account, or withholding some dirt on him, or something HE gained. At the cost of his own nation's interests.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. In your estimation, the President is committing treason by speaking with and coming to an agreement with a foreign dignitary?

Unilaterally? Does he need the consent of Congress or The Court to end a CIA program?
 

GJ51

GJ51
vindelanos said:
Yeah. You really can't. The amount of wild speculation that is being thrown around on this thread is absolutely mind boggling.
Click to expand...

No, no

We're the crazy ones! :D

Not one single statute cited, nor any credible evidence of any crime committed, but we're just "blind" to the truth.

Has there been some amateur political missteps by people never previously engaged in politics? Certainly.

But that's all it's ever been. Trump is deemed politically incorrect by the DC elite and must be drummed out at all costs.

That's all there is and there ain't no more.

A leak per day on average and the theory is that there's a crime in there somewhere, just hasn't been found yet.

Call me if anyone ever produces any credible evidence.

You want to see them really come unglued? Wait till they actually determine that Flynn may have committed a crime, but when the defense argues that the evidence was obtained illegally through misuse of FISA 702 and the prosecution is barred from admitting any evidence obtained as "bite of the forbidden fruit" and the whole thing gets thrown out.

Pretty much a shame, how much ignorance of US law there is today. As we know - ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 115407

D
6xes said:
you have only just realised this??
This has been occurring for months. Seriously, never-trumpers love to wallow in dirt, thinking its gold
Click to expand...

It's astounding - the way people just assign criminal responsibility because it "sounds like it ought to be illegal".

In the Army we called it barracks lawering. Here I've called it forum lawyering. People making assumptions on law based on keywords.

Had this idiot peer in the Army who stood up one day and asked a police officer (she was giving us a presentation) if "entrapment is legal"? She was flabbergasted and asked him to clarify. He explained that one day he got ticketed by a cop running a speed trap, and he thought that he shouldn't have gotten ticketed because he was the "victim of police entrapment". I kid you not.

Here in this thread it's a little different. "We really want him to be guilty of something... anything! He had a closed-door meeting with a foreign dignitary! That sounds nefarious! Treason! Treason! He made unilateral decisions! Treason!"

It's absolutely insane!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FuzzySpider

FuzzySpider
vindelanos said:
Yeah. You really can't. The amount of wild speculation that is being thrown around on this thread is absolutely mind boggling.
Click to expand...

1. Do you believe that Trump Jnr met with Russian agents to get illegally acquired material on their political opponents?

2. Do you believe that Trump Snr met with Putin alone to discuss adoption?
 

GJ51

GJ51
FuzzySpider said:
1. Do you believe that Trump Jnr met with Russian agents to get illegally acquired material on their political opponents?

2. Do you believe that Trump Snr met with Putin alone to discuss adoption?
Click to expand...

1. Do you have PROOF that Russian agents provided illegally acquired material?

2. Is there a crime in discussing adoption policy with a foreign leader? What if Trump discusses adoption policy with the Prime Minister of Canada? Is that a crime? If so, why? If not why would it not be a crime for Trump to discuss adoption policy with Canada, but it would be a crime to discuss it with Russia?


News reporters obtain and publish illegally disseminated material almost every day. I assume you are advocating that they should be prosecuted?

Please cite EVIDENCE and relevant criminal statutes.

What evidence is there that Jr was told that the material was illegally obtained prior to the meeting?

The act of criminally obtaining information or classified is a crime by the actor who uses illegal methods to get such information. Someone who receives it without engaging in criminal activity and decides it's newsworthy and should be published is protected by law. The courts have been very clear on this point. Uh - Daniel Ellsberg ring a bell for ya?

So yes, if you break into the Pentagon and steal classified documents, you've committed a crime. If you then take those documents and ask a newspaper to release them, the paper is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

So what crimes are you talking about?
 
Last edited:

Boomer Kay

B
vindelanos said:
It's astounding - the way people just assign criminal responsibility because it "sounds like it ought to be illegal".
Click to expand...

Yea, just like Sean Hannity and the Comey interview last year. Ha ha.

I find it rather hilarious that you defend lying regardless of it being a crime or just wrong.
They're not lying to us, since "we" have stopped believing them in 1990? They're lying to you.

And I nearly spilled my coffee when I saw this "act of Christianity"
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/...e-jeanine-devil-politician-first-trolley-hell

"If the devil called me and said he wanted to set up a meeting to give me opposition research on my opponent I'd be on the first trolley to hell to get it," the judge said on her show Sunday. "And any politician who tells you otherwise is a bald-faced liar."

(Except for the icebear VP who turned stolen material to the FBI .. But he's Democrat? So ... uhm... lock him up!)

What evidence is there that Jr was told that the material was illegally obtained prior to the meeting?
Click to expand...

The violation is receiving things "of value from a foreign government".
Yea, that will be hard to prove, but them denying (pretty much literally) that they received something "of value" is pretty good indication that they're aware of the crap on their soles.
Let's see if Mr. Mueller is as Germanic and thorough as his last name suggests.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom