TrumPutinGate

#9,901
#9,901
Mick said:
I think you're right. If they would have offered up dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign we would be talking about impeachment for her. The optics would be the same and the concerns would be the same.
Click to expand...

Umm, who would be talking about it other than Fox News?
 
#9,902
#9,902
Mick said:
I think you're right. If they would have offered up dirt on Trump to Hillary's campaign we would be talking about impeachment for her. The optics would be the same and the concerns would be the same.
Click to expand...

No we wouldn't because it would have never seen the light of day.
 
#9,908
#9,908
I have a lawyer question for LG and CWV...

Is it illegal for me to curse at and threaten the life of that chick with the high pitched voice that records all the robo-calls? Even though she isn't really there?

I'm pretty sure I called her all sorts of names and threatened to burn her house down with her in it since this is the third call I've gotten today from different numbers.
 
#9,909
#9,909
I think it's funny that non lawyers in here are arguing points and nuance of law with lawyers.

Hysterical but not at all shocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,912
#9,912
Septic said:
I think it's funny that non lawyers in here are arguing points and nuance of law with lawyers.

Hysterical but not at all shocking.
Click to expand...

One of the lawyers is a UF grad. About like getting his diploma from a gumball machine.
 
#9,913
#9,913
SamRebel35 said:
I agree. Intent matters. Does not change the fact that it isn't a crime (at least not based on what we know) and isn't treason. Shady as hell? Yes. Stupid as hell? Yes. Crime? No. Treason? No. The fact that just about every other sleazy politician would have fallen into this honeypot is not a relevant defense for Trump. He ran on the basis of not being your typical sleazy politician, so this is definitely a strike against him in that regard.
Click to expand...

That actually very debatable. Federal law pretty clearly states that "seeking something of value" from a "foreign national" for use in a "federal or state election" is illegal.

You can not want to believe it applies, but it could absolutely be viewed as a crime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,914
#9,914
Grand Vol said:
I have a lawyer question for LG and CWV...

Is it illegal for me to curse at and threaten the life of that chick with the high pitched voice that records all the robo-calls? Even though she isn't really there?

I'm pretty sure I called her all sorts of names and threatened to burn her house down with her in it since this is the third call I've gotten today from different numbers.
Click to expand...

I am aware of no crime you committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,915
#9,915
Septic said:
That actually very debatable. Federal law pretty clearly states that "seeking something of value" from a "foreign national" for use in a "federal or state election" is illegal.

You can not want to believe it applies, but it could absolutely be viewed as a crime.
Click to expand...

I hope they charge JR and have a trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,917
#9,917
akljdal kjgasdlkjgcalkjg lkahg lagc klnaelkg chlakjg lkasdj cgclkasnglkasn cglknaslgj alkcgjlaksdgj clsdj lkghahglkjasglk jcalkghasl gchhlaks cjglkahcglkashcglkj sdlalgj alkjgakjgdsajlak l lkgsa jlkg halk gjvasdkgjlrgjwo lksahg iw arhvohvaowihj lka hgoliwehavg

Quote from one of Volprof "trusty news sources"
 
#9,918
#9,918
Grand Vol said:
The lawyers aren't really making good points.
Click to expand...

No, they are. Many here simply disagree with their politics and therefore don't want to accept or concede they are far more competent to digest the legal nuances of whats occured.

Having a political opinion and access to google doesn't equate to earning a JD and passing the Bar.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#9,920
#9,920
Septic said:
No, they are. Many here simply disagree with their politics and therefore don't want to accept or concede they are far more competent to digest the legal nuances of whats occured.

Having a political opinion and access to google doesn't isn't a equal to earning a JD and passing the BAR.
Click to expand...

You believe they are because you are using the same thing you accuse others of. They believe what you believe, hence they are right in your eyes.

As stated, the meeting certainly raises eyebrows especially in light of what information the emails contained. Now, as to whether that's illegal, collusion or otherwise, is going to be up to the Special Prosecutor to decide. At a minimum, it's a big black eye for Trump and company. Maximum? Don't think it'll reach impeachment levels (except that dingbat that already filed them yesterday).

My issue is that LG is trying to convince us other POTUS candidates wouldn't have done the same thing "because they said they wouldn't." Give me a break. Hillary would have (might have for all we know). The difference is the Trump campaign just got caught doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,921
#9,921
A little humor in this otherwise serious day.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/885525497219760128[/twitter]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,923
#9,923
Septic said:
No, they are. Many here simply disagree with their politics and therefore don't want to accept or concede they are far more competent to digest the legal nuances of whats occured.

Having a political opinion and access to google doesn't equate to earning a JD and passing the Bar.
Click to expand...

In FL it obviously does.
 
#9,924
#9,924
Grand Vol said:
You believe they are because you are using the same thing you accuse others of. They believe what you believe, hence they are right in your eyes.

As stated, the meeting certainly raises eyebrows especially in light of what information the emails contained. Now, as to whether that's illegal, collusion or otherwise, is going to be up to the Special Prosecutor to decide. At a minimum, it's a big black eye for Trump and company. Maximum? Don't think it'll reach impeachment levels (except that dingbat that already filed them yesterday).

My issue is that LG is trying to convince us other POTUS candidates wouldn't have done the same thing "because they said they wouldn't." Give me a break. Hillary would have (might have for all we know). The difference is the Trump campaign just got caught doing it.
Click to expand...

No, I just know better than to argue with an attorney on how the law works.

Frankly, I find all of this pretty funny. I'm just completely shocked that junior thought it'd make the content of the emails "cool" since he released them and not the FBI or the NYT.

The whole trump clan is joke. Hillary may have been a criminal, but she takes dumps with higher IQ's than the two Don's combined.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top