Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 16:59:50 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump confused by Fake News
murder
Member
Sun Aug 05 11:24:53
http://twi...ump/status/1026084333315153924

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!
delude
Member
Sun Aug 05 11:41:50
Obviously he feels guilty about something... lol
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Aug 05 14:03:12
if not illegal why important to say he didn't know about it? ... w/ exclamation point...

also, they've essentially admitted to collusion now since first story was it was about adoptions... adoptions were stopped by Russia, they could be re-started by Russia, don't need Trump... you'd need Trump to end sanctions which was why adoptions were stopped

so... he admits (& emails prove) it was to get dirt, and by saying it was about adoptions clearly it was Russia asking for sanctions lifted

that exchange is illegal

∴ lock Jr. up

plus Trump DID know as he announced a speech a few days before meeting about Hillary dirt that would include new info

∴ lock Sr. up
Forwyn
Member
Sun Aug 05 20:41:50
Story has always been that they met on the promise of oppo research, quickly realized she had nothing and was angling on adoption, and cut off the meeting.

That exchange is no more illegal than hiring a foreign agent to conduct oppo research based on Kremlin chatter.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sun Aug 05 21:57:37
it IS more illegal actually

i've heard no one make a case that the dossier was illegal in any way (other than baseless claims by the idiot child himself who knows nothing about the law)

whereas w/ Trump you have from potential illegal campaign contribution to conspiracy against the United States & aiding and abetting a conspiracy

also just logically, hiring a private investigator to investigate Trump's actions in Russia obviously is a lot different than Jr receiving emails saying the Russian gov't wants to help them then taking a meeting... at Trump Tower w/ the top people


also, you're using 'always' a bit loosely... the story was there was no connection between the campaign & Russia... to 'ok, there was a meeting but it was just about adoptions'... to 'ok, the meeting was about getting dirt' (only after the media had Jr's emails so no way to escape it)... plus learning Trump himself dictated the initial bullshit explanation (after Sekulow & Sanders specifically said he had nothing to do with it)

and that's not necessarily the last of the revelations w/ Cohen saying Trump knew beforehand and people like Tucker Carlson pushing 'so what if the Trump campaign colluded w/ Russia'
American Democrat
Member
Mon Aug 06 05:22:34
""Story has always been that they met on the promise of oppo research, quickly realized she had nothing and was angling on adoption, and cut off the meeting.

That exchange is no more illegal than hiring a foreign agent to conduct oppo research based on Kremlin chatter. "

There story has taken so many spins. It can be easily understandable as to why you still cling on some misinformation and events that has taken place.

Let's start with the meeting from what is actually known;

Trump, JR. was the first to claim that the meeting was only about adoption. He made that claim. He didn't express it was about opposition research. Only when more details of the meeting was reported and the investigation starting to progress more formally that he changed his statement again. In fact he had changed his statement at least three times.

The premise of the meeting was indeed him about gaining "incriminating" information about the DNC and Clinton campaign and ties to the Russian government. The lawyer was referred and maintained to be a representative of the Russian government to provide such details. Another enticing interest as to why Trump, Jr et al. agreed to meet. According to his own email exchange.

Here is where the legalities come in; Trump Jr. was attempting to obtain information and according to the USC 52 30131 and USC 36 510 he may be in violation of it:


"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."

"A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value."

This has been discussed before when pseudo-lawyer wanted to make the same similar claim.

This is where Trump Jr. may have a difficult time defending.

Now let's address the other part of your statement regarding the dossier. It would not qualify as Steele was subcontracted and it was not known to the DNC or Clinton campaign. Fusion GPS was the company that was hired. Which was used by Democrats and Republicans.

However the information recovered was used to supplement the Russian interference investigation. And some corroborated as to what was factually known and what was not revealed due to classified information.

At the same time, Steele, and this is a personal opinion, probably thought best to make a quick buck for himself as well to release it to the media. Despite the fact he was a paid informant by the FBI.

But to infer or declare it illegally based upon the aforementioned USC, would not qualify unless directly utilized and the DNC or Clinton campaigned knew of it.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 10:28:11
This was one day after the NYT report.

"In a statement on Sunday, Donald Trump Jr. said he had met with the Russian lawyer at the request of an acquaintance. “After pleasantries were exchanged,” he said, “the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

He said she then turned the conversation to adoption of Russian children and the Magnitsky Act, an American law that blacklists suspected Russian human rights abusers. The law so enraged President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia that he retaliated by halting American adoptions of Russian children.

“It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting,” Mr. Trump said."

I'm sure the twelve hours previously in which Twitter was astorm about a five minute meeting that primarily focused on Veselnitskaya's attempt to lobby against the Magnitsky Act were riveting and unforgettable, but for everyone else, it's been over a year since Jr. said he was hoping to gain info.

"USC 52 30131 and USC 36 510"

She said she had info on Russians funding the DNC (not without precedent, DNC loves taking money from foreigners like the PRC). If the information was correct, no sane person would push for prosecution of the whistleblower over the launderers and criminal funders - even if that whistleblower were politically motivated - just like no one sane is calling for Steele, politically motivated and funneling Kremlin chatter, to be prosecuted.

Because Trump is right in this respect - such behavior has been normal for decades. No one batted an eye when Kennedy wanted to secure domestic interviews for Andropov to hurt Reagan.

"subcontracted"

rofl.

That's okay. Trump Tower meeting was "subcontracted" by Rob Goldstone.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 11:16:13
Hey guys remember forwyn is a pro interpreting laws! Lol
Delude
Member
Mon Aug 06 11:23:06
"Muh whataboutisms"
Delude
Member
Mon Aug 06 11:23:56
"Because Trump is right in this respect - such behavior has been normal for decades. No one batted an eye when Kennedy wanted to secure domestic interviews for Andropov to hurt Reagan."

"Muh whataboutisms"

Fixed.
smart dude
Member
Mon Aug 06 11:26:42
Where do whataboutism rank among the rhetorical strategies of struggling debaters? You think somewhere between name-calling and straw men? Or is it even lower?
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 13:53:58
I think whining about "muh whataboutisms" ranks far lower than pointing out an entrenched status quo that only started being whined about somewhere around Nov 2016.
smart dude
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:01:56
Once you've reached the point where you're actually defending your whataboutisms, you've already lost. Sorry, bruh.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:12:38
"This is actually pretty common"

"Muh whataboutism! Look at the point I made! You lose bruh!"

lol
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:17:32
Forwyn with his astound interpretation skills. Especially when he claims to know laws. Again bang up job! Lol
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:24:14
There's another two comments. One could say you're at it "repeatedly". Keep it up, I imagine you could desperately spam a bit more.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:42:54
Lol still forwyn admits he can't intrepet laws.

Gee I wonder what that official statement from the police said....and why charges were dropped. Lol

Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 14:50:21
http://www...st-new-emails-show/602-8202209

Lol oooops
werewolf dictator
Member
Mon Aug 06 15:32:40
trump campaign got no information from trump tower meeting and no deals happened

meanwhile.. hillary campaign paid $10 million to aid senior russian government officials in kremlin to wage actual information warfare against usa.. in order to create division and chaos.. [what do you think motivates senior government russians to give peepee dossier stories.. of course it is same motivations russians had to use facebook to organize antitrump rallies and promote all kinds of leftist pages and stuff.. to wage information warfare and create chaos and division]

clinton campaign knew it was illegal to collude with kremlin to wage information warfare against usa.. thus they broke campaign laws and lied to fec repeatedly about what $10m was paid for.. and then after that they “lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year” [as nyt maggie haberman said]
Trolly
Member
Mon Aug 06 15:34:30
Lulz@ rugian's multi
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 16:26:21
Gee I wonder why the multi "repeatedly" spams irrelevant shit...blather that would be irrelevant even in its home thread. lol
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 16:29:46
^still can't interpret laws. Another thread added to demonstrate that.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 17:07:33
^still doesn't understand the meaning of the word "repeatedly". Another thread added to demonstrate that.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 17:24:04
^still refused to acknowledge the official police statement further demonstrating he can't interpret laws.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 17:50:10
^still refused to acknowledge that police stations and prosecutors interpret laws differently from district to district. Still refused to acknowledge that anything less than a court ruling is utterly irrelevant, because a new prosecutor could pick up the case tomorrow.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Mon Aug 06 18:31:56
^still can't interpret laws and both have stated the law in question was not clearly in violation.

You are still desperate for wanting to be write where every expert and story discussing the case itself is totally opposite of what you wanting it to be.

It has to be a case of 1) incorrigibility 2) really fucking dumb. And judging by your analytical abilities and various assessments I am going to go with really fucking dumb.

But still keep up the good fight to trying to deny the actually facts of what transpired as you desperately push a square into a circle.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Aug 06 21:37:18
^still unable to comprehend basic statements

Original post by me was in response to fake news BBC asserting that the law only applied to touching dancers, not patrons.

You decided to be a faggot and bitch and moan about the word "regularly". You did this under laymen's terms, and then circled the wagons with DA and police statements. I pointed out that this could still qualify. Now you stalk multiple threads weeks later butthurt about it.

The legal definition is provided, and "repeatedly" suffices. Now, if you're not a retard, which you are, more than once classifies as repeat - she was scheduled to make a repeat performance. The law in question is not defined in past tense terms - as I mentioned in the relevant thread, any good DA would be able to get around your bleating about "regularly" with a new hire who was arrested on her first night and scheduled to appear again.

Now, if I were a DA, facing a potentially expensive lawsuit due to officer misconduct, it would probably be easier to look to a loophole and drop the charges. A retard might look at this and think that it all but establishes precedent.

It doesn't.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 03:00:54
Yep. I was right. You're going with really fucking dumb.

So get used to being called out on it when you try to interpret laws with your idiotic version of them.

Lol@"loophole"
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 03:00:55
Yep. I was right. You're going with really fucking dumb.

So get used to being called out on it when you try to interpret laws with your idiotic version of them.

Lol@"loophole"
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 03:29:27
"By early afternoon, prosecutors said they were dropping the case because Ohio’s law against physical contact between strippers and customers applies only to someone who “regularly” performs at a club. In Daniels’ case, it was her first appearance at Sirens in Columbus."

But let's not forget, this must be a "loophole" according to "really fucking dumb" forwyn.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 03:36:06
Also while "really fucking dumb" forwyn still thinks he is able to interpret the law in question correctly. Which he clearly hasn't. He also conveniently ignores the chain of emails prior to the incident that really highlights the motives of the officers. Even their own police chief said as well. But "really fucking dumb" forwyn must think otherwise because it was a "loophole" to the law.

You're really fucking dumb, maybe not to the heights of hot rod dumb, but you could be a shooting star...

Thanks again for displaying your complete ineptitude of understanding the language of the law and manage to still do this day interpret into your own perverted version of what it actually means. "but, but the DA could..." Just stop and accept that you're being really fucking dumb. Just like in this thread with your dumbassery defending Trump and this meeting with some crazy concocted version of the events that fit your narrative.
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 03:50:48
"Original post by me was in response to fake news BBC asserting that the law only applied to touching dancers, not patrons. "

Also why do you have to lie?

Your original post was addressing Hood;

"So yeah, completely bogus charges." -hood

"False." -really fucking dumb forwyn

http://www...hread=82960&time=1531388797755
delude
Member
Tue Aug 07 06:04:53
As much fun as it is to revisit the retardation by forwyn, but I thought this was a done deal?

1. forwyn was wrong and was universally pointed out for being wrong and retarded.

2. It's always a delight to see the lengths that forwyn and some others will go to defend Trump.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Aug 07 09:27:47
"He also conveniently ignores the chain of emails prior to the incident that really highlights the motives of the officers."

Nope. Now, I'm not surprised, given your clearly butthurt inability to chain words together or understand the basic definitions of words, even when provided:

"facing a potentially expensive lawsuit due to officer misconduct"

Again, the motives of the officers is irrelevant to a discussion of the law. And that chief's/DA's statement is, again, irrelevant to a discussion of the law.

"Also why do you have to lie?

Your original post was addressing Hood;

"So yeah, completely bogus charges." -hood

"False." -really fucking dumb forwyn"

Hurrrrr durrrr I'm a multi and I think I made another point

The rest of hood's post:

"An Ohio law known as the Community Defense Act proscribes anyone touching a nude or semi-nude dancer, unless they are related."

Yet...

"A police charge sheet tweeted by a CBS News reporter says Ms Daniels touched a police officer posing as a patron "in a specified anatomical area"."

Patron == nonemployee. As in, not a dancer. Stormy touching the patron is not covered by the law. The patron touching stormy would be covered, but then the patron would be the one who violated the law, not stormy.

I'll await your next 5 rambling, butthurt repetitions of "d-d-d-duummmmb"
Jack Cafferty
Member
Tue Aug 07 10:05:07
I can't help it if you want to be really dumb and stay dumb because you have to lie and claim your point was this instead of that. While still at the same time claim that the law was specific when the charges from the memorandum specifically stated as to why it was dropped due to lack of probable cause.

It seems that you're "butthurt" as you desperately convert it to your personal narrative and still foolishly remain wrong
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share