Please, please, please, pleeeeeaaaase trump supporters stop embarrassing yourselves. You need to literally stfu and sit down you low information traitors. Even foxnews can't propagandize this news. Nytimes was genius in how they trickle the info out. trump Jr had no idea they had his emails

You need to literally stfu and sit down you low information traitors

Love this line.. summarized it well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

Which crime? Taking for money is prohibited by election laws, but what crime is it to take info?

The crime is soliciting or accepting something of value. The law is not just about actual cash.

There is no indication of solicitation. Even under the broad definition of "solicitation" propounded by the FEC. What was accepted?

I am sure there are plenty of other crimes committed elsewhere, like failing to disclose this meeting in the first place. The prohibition on private diplomacy. Etc. But hearing about proffered information? that apparently never materialized . . . .

At least one expert disagrees with your analysis:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

Your expert got ahead of him/herself. In the article the author notes that a "solicitation" means to ask or request. Then they specifically go on to note that the information was offered. Offer and ask are not synonyms.

In her televised interview, Natalia Veselnitskaya said Trump Jr was begging her for the information, but she had nothing to offer. Looks like it's time to catch up.

Anonymous wrote:If the info would incriminate Clinton, wouldn't this simply be a move by Russia to keep a criminal out of the White House? Sounds like positive political behavior to me.

You're such trash.

Please, please, please, pleeeeeaaaase trump supporters stop embarrassing yourselves. You need to literally stfu and sit down you low information traitors. Even foxnews can't propagandize this news. Nytimes was genius in how they trickle the info out. trump Jr had no idea they had his emails. So again, your hero is a Russian sellout. Accept it. Stop being obstreperous little children and let the adults run the show.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/11/donald-trump-jr-s-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-what-to-know.html

Jk.

Anonymous wrote:If the info would incriminate Clinton, wouldn't this simply be a move by Russia to keep a criminal out of the White House? Sounds like positive political behavior to me.

Omg. OMG. You think Russia did this out of.... altruism???

Nations act in their own best interests. THEIR own. Not ours.

Why would it be in Russia's interest to have Trump instead of Clinton as President? Hmmmmmm Let me ask my 8th grader to do the political math for me.

You PP are an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:1. We never met the Russians. A hoax story.
2. Ok, we met with the Russians, but it was about adoptions 3. Possible Dem plot to trap us?


???????

Wait... It was about yoga classes and weddings!

McConnell just delayed the August recess "to work on the healthcare bill." Raise your hand if your believe that is the real reason. That POS legislation that moderate and tea bangers hate was never going pass.

See: Republicans realizing they need to do something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

Which crime? Taking for money is prohibited by election laws, but what crime is it to take info?

The crime is soliciting or accepting something of value. The law is not just about actual cash.

There is no indication of solicitation. Even under the broad definition of "solicitation" propounded by the FEC. What was accepted?

I am sure there are plenty of other crimes committed elsewhere, like failing to disclose this meeting in the first place. The prohibition on private diplomacy. Etc. But hearing about proffered information? that apparently never materialized . . . .

At least one expert disagrees with your analysis:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

Your expert got ahead of him/herself. In the article the author notes that a "solicitation" means to ask or request. Then they specifically go on to note that the information was offered. Offer and ask are not synonyms.

But the facts have now changed. The Russian lawyer says Trump approached them with the request. So I call and raise you one.

You are raising me anything. The fact that someone wants a position supported doesn't make them a Trumpster. If additional info comes out that Trump (or his minions) solicited it, fine. Prosecute for that too. I simply pointed out that your expert didn't support his own arguments. And, in fact, contradicted them. That's not how you make a case.

What's worse for the Trumps - Don Don's emails establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to violate federal election law. Plus, Russian support is clearly a "thing of value" which the Trumps tacitly accepted. The whole purpose of this meeting was for the Russians to see if Trump was onboard with their plan. The meeting signaled they were and would not report the Russian contact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/884607765150355457

Reince was likely at this meeting as well, or listening in.

Doubtful. He would have stopped a meeting like this.

Doubt it. He called it a nothingburger.

Anonymous wrote:If the info would incriminate Clinton, wouldn't this simply be a move by Russia to keep a criminal out of the White House? Sounds like positive political behavior to me.

Do you ascribe such positive political motives to all nations hostile to the US? How kind of Russia to be thinking of the US's well-being by asking presidential candidate's son to commit a crime.

Also, if their motives are altruistic, there are ways to get negative HRC info out that are not a crime. Like publishing it in the media themselves. Or leaking it to any respectable Western journalist. Golden showers info on Trump got out from Russia just fine.

Besides, the info DIDN'T incriminate Clinton.

And you have gone way, way down the rabbit hole. I hope you aren't this dumb IRL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/884607765150355457

Reince was likely at this meeting as well, or listening in.

Doubtful. He would have stopped a meeting like this.

Reince stop it? No way. He would be rolled by either Trump Jr and Manafort or both. Reince is a beta. He might have been able to dissuade Kushner, but that's it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/884607765150355457

Reince was likely at this meeting as well, or listening in.

Doubtful. He would have stopped a meeting like this.

What makes you think that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

Which crime? Taking for money is prohibited by election laws, but what crime is it to take info?

The crime is soliciting or accepting something of value. The law is not just about actual cash.

There is no indication of solicitation. Even under the broad definition of "solicitation" propounded by the FEC. What was accepted?

I am sure there are plenty of other crimes committed elsewhere, like failing to disclose this meeting in the first place. The prohibition on private diplomacy. Etc. But hearing about proffered information? that apparently never materialized . . . .

At least one expert disagrees with your analysis:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

Your expert got ahead of him/herself. In the article the author notes that a "solicitation" means to ask or request. Then they specifically go on to note that the information was offered. Offer and ask are not synonyms.

But the facts have now changed. The Russian lawyer says Trump approached them with the request. So I call and raise you one.

You are raising me anything. The fact that someone wants a position supported doesn't make them a Trumpster. If additional info comes out that Trump (or his minions) solicited it, fine. Prosecute for that too. I simply pointed out that your expert didn't support his own arguments. And, in fact, contradicted them. That's not how you make a case.

What's worse for the Trumps - Don Don's emails establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to violate federal election law. Plus, Russian support is clearly a "thing of value" which the Trumps tacitly accepted. The whole purpose of this meeting was for the Russians to see if Trump was onboard with their plan. The meeting signaled they were and would not report the Russian contact.

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/884607765150355457

Reince was likely at this meeting as well, or listening in.

Doubtful. He would have stopped a meeting like this.

You all realize this isn't the only shoe to drop, right?

Even McCain said it was a centipede.