Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
President Trump President Trump

07-11-2017 , 05:28 PM
A tricking republicans to defend foreign interest meddling in U.S. elections is the meanest thing Obama Clinton has ever done.
07-11-2017 , 05:30 PM
Here is the background for the Obama/Iran event I mentioned. We don't know if it's true or not. Punditfact says false, but they also say the following.

Quote:
Strassel said that in 2008, Obama’s presidential campaign secretly sent former Ambassador William Miller to Iran to talk with Iranian leaders.

This is a case of he-said-she-said. A single conservative scholar says Miller told him about his secret ‘08 campaign mission to Iran. Independent journalists who have covered U.S.-Iran relations extensively haven’t been able to confirm the account. There is no corroborating evidence, and Miller says it’s not true; he says he never worked on behalf of the Obama campaign, and he didn’t travel to Iran in 2008.

At PolitiFact, we believe the burden is on the speaker to back up their claim with evidence. The evidence here is insufficient, so we rate this claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...n-during-his-/

Bolded is the actual truth, not their "false" conclusion.

It's also a different fact pattern that, if true, may or may not be illegal, though, probably, is my guess.

As I have described above, looking at past practice/enforcement is necessary to determine if Trump Jr did anything wrong, imho.
07-11-2017 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
A tricking republicans to defend foreign interest meddling in U.S. elections is the meanest thing Obama Clinton has ever done.
lol, too true
07-11-2017 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
You post in a political forum every day and don't know even the slightest bit about political news dumbass
You make posts of literally zero substance. 58000 of them. At least others in your corner actually do the footwork needed and construct arguments supporting their point of view. You just erupt from the corner with insults and think you're fighting the same fight lol.
07-11-2017 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
I would agree with the following interpretation:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-t...ussian-lawyer/
This article is not only 24 hours old which is ancient history in the context of this story (there have been two bombshells since then, last night and this morning), but the author does not even appear to be a lawyer and "lawnewz.com" appears to cover, like, celebrity trials and dumb local crime stories and ****

wow
07-11-2017 , 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot
You make posts of literally zero substance. 58000 of them.
lol? I have tons of posts with substance including in this very thread, you just cannot be right about anything no matter how hard you try
07-11-2017 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot
It's like that moment in everyones lives where they realize they are on their own and their parents aren't gonna take care of them anymore. I call it the 'maturity moment.'

There will come a point in everyones lives where the government is not capable of taking care of you anymore, and people will have to either step into the real world or die. That's the reckoning I wish on liberals.
Yeah sure.
07-11-2017 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoOrDoNot
people will have to either step into the real world or die. That's the reckoning I wish on liberals.
any preference?
07-11-2017 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy
Lol. The only thing they agreed to, was to meet.
watch any episode of Dateline: To Catch a Predator
07-11-2017 , 05:52 PM
Damn it. May have to get a WSJ sub.

Wondering if this WSJ article sheds light.
07-11-2017 , 05:53 PM
try reading it
07-11-2017 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
This article is not only 24 hours old which is ancient history in the context of this story (there have been two bombshells since then, last night and this morning), but the author does not even appear to be a lawyer and "lawnewz.com" appears to cover, like, celebrity trials and dumb local crime stories and ****

wow
Pretty sure he is a lawyer. But regardless any interpretation that has value defined so broad to cover anything which is possibly beneficial to a campaign ie information, meetings etc would be absurd and most likely unconstitutional.

Just about every politician would have violated such a interpretation. Hillary having a illegal speak at a campaign event, Several campaigns which obtained the dossier, anytime they did a press release of meeting a foreign leader ...
07-11-2017 , 05:54 PM
That article refers to events in late 2009, well after Obama was president. Obviously there could be no violations of campaign law involved...
07-11-2017 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
Pretty sure he is a lawyer.
This doesn't seem like the twitter account of a lawyer
07-11-2017 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian
try reading it
I couldn't read it. I don't have an account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
That article refers to events in late 2009, well after Obama was president. Obviously there could be no violations of campaign law involved...
It was a source in the Politifact article I quoted. Politifact said Ledeen was the only source of the info, but I wanted to read the most conservative source they quoted to try and see if that was true. Thanks for the info. I'm off the trail for now.

Edit: Maybe not most conservative source. Just the source I wanted.
07-11-2017 , 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
lol wil, wrong again, still undefeated. When I started posting here regularly in 2017 it was in content threads (remember when those were a thing?), posting news about Trump, while you were still jerking yourself off in the Milo thread attacking anyone and everyone like usual.
What does this have to do, at all, with what I said except prove my point that you are newish? Is 2017 not newish?
07-11-2017 , 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
I stand corrected. His law career is probably not going very well given that he's currently paying bills by writing articles like Judge Faces Ethics Charges After Multiple Clerks Catch Him Watching Porn.

Regarding his actual article, he makes this point:

Quote:
How about the generally messy accusations of illegality here? Again, Richard Painter: [Trump Jr.] must have known that the only way Russia would get such information was by spying. But, well, not really. There was no official acknowledgment of Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election until October 8, 2016; Trump Jr.s half-hour chat with Veselnitskaya occurred four months before that.
The news that's emerged since this article was written blows that away. Don Jr. knows it's from the Russian government because he was told that before the meeting.

Also worth noting, this same author also wrote an article yesterday for LawNewz endorsing the view that Trump Jr. committed conspiracy crimes (and, again, this is before news emerged that Don Jr. was told it came from a Russian government effort to help his father and said "I love it").
07-11-2017 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
I stand corrected. His law career is probably not going very well given that he's currently paying bills by writing articles like Judge Faces Ethics Charges After Multiple Clerks Catch Him Watching Porn.

Regarding his actual article, he makes this point:



The news that's emerged since this article was written blows that away. Don Jr. knows it's from the Russian government because he was told that before the meeting.

Also worth noting, this same author also wrote an article yesterday for LawNewz endorsing the view that Trump Jr. committed conspiracy crimes (and, again, this is before news emerged that Don Jr. was told it came from a Russian government effort to help his father and said "I love it").
Do you agree with the fact that no one has been prosecuted under campaign finance laws for obtaining information or having a meeting?

Think it would be very paid precedent and really do not seeing it hold up on appeal. But if so then there are a ton of other cases to go after. So what is even the penalty since the vast vast majority of campaign finance cases are the FEC administratively gives a small fine?

Not disagreeing that it is bad optics. But that does not mean it automatically equals criminal behavior.
07-11-2017 , 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cut
any preference?
Step into the real world. It's like guiding an adolescent with an overly optimistic view of reality. It's hard to break their innocence and naivete, but it's necessary.
07-11-2017 , 06:25 PM
It's quite amazing to see people jump and up down like they just saw the piss tape with Russian hookers with their own eyes when it comes to this Trump Jr. story.

It'll be nothing very shortly. This virtual hard on is weird.
07-11-2017 , 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
Do you agree with the fact that no one has been prosecuted under campaign finance laws for obtaining information or having a meeting?
I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to, as this argument does not appear to have come from the article you cited. I also don't have a thorough knowledge of what people have and haven't been prosecuted for under campaign finance laws, so I can't really answer that question. Are you pulling this from sources?
07-11-2017 , 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mongidig
Let me get this straight. You are on the internet all day every day and spend nearly your entire life arguing with 3 or 4 people whom you don't know.

I am not gay, I do not keep up with current gay news.

I have a life, I do many other things.

Now who is the stupid one?
Your life seems to include sitting on a website all day, championing the failures of one of the most hated human beings in history who happens to be the President of a country in which you don't live.
07-11-2017 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerodox
Here is the background for the Obama/Iran event I mentioned. We don't know if it's true or not. Punditfact says false, but they also say the following.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...n-during-his-/

Bolded is the actual truth, not their "false" conclusion.

It's also a different fact pattern that, if true, may or may not be illegal, though, probably, is my guess.

As I have described above, looking at past practice/enforcement is necessary to determine if Trump Jr did anything wrong, imho.
I'm a bit disappointed that is the conclusion you would draw here.

pokerodox is a serial rapist. There is no corroborating evidence. He said, she said imo.
07-11-2017 , 07:04 PM
They don't know it is false. "False" is misleading.

"Undetermined."

"No evidence" might be the best wording.

Clearly some things are proven false. That is different from "no evidence other than one person's statement."

      
m