That's not a answer do you believe if she won the media would be just as outraged as they are now ? It's a simple yes or no
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Become a Patron!
GOVERNMENT WATCH!!
- Thread starter ej1024
- Start date
- Status
That's not a answer do you believe if she won the media would be just as outraged as they are now ? It's a simple yes or no
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He works for the law offices of Dewey Phuquem & Howe.
And haven't you learned by now?... Liberals NEVER answer the question.
Probably not. But that doesn't mean I have any more or less sympathy for Trump junior. His dad has alienated the press in every way possible. His bed he can lye in it.
When will you figure out I trust no politician enough to avoid skepticism toward them.
Let the real lawyers work that out.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't improve your pointless statements. There are plenty of legal experts stating exactly that right now. So unless you are a legal expert, I will put more faith in what they are saying than your doubt.
So you're changing your tune now... Cause earlier you were all about...
fraleywp said:
PROVE IT.
So your simple answer is no . Why do you think that is ? Is it that all the truth seekers now are not really truth seekers ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't believe you.
What law is that??? Show me the law that says 'information' is illegal.
Show me.
He did nothing illegal ! Plain and simple . Does it have good optics ? No not with the Red scare we are under . But no laws were broken you can rest easy .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again... show me where this appears in the law.
fraleywp said:
f1r3b1rd
https://cookingwithlegs.com/
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
VU Patreon
It's a law that more or less regulates campaign contribution. Mckain/Feingold was an amendment to it.
I didn't read it in entirety; but, I think the argument is that any information provided by a foreign source is essentially a contribution by a foreign source.
If that is what is being said, I would call bullshit so long as the information provided was Truthful and supported with irrefutable proof.
I don't care where information comes from it proves criminal activity. If no information of the sort changed hands and all that happened was a trump person meeting with a Russian person... I don't care.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
How dense can a person be? I told you it was part of the quote where I found the law that references the issue at hand. I didn't even notice it was there until you pointed it out. I will be more careful next time as I hate giving people straws to grasp at.
f1r3b1rd
https://cookingwithlegs.com/
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
VU Patreon
Ahh he is arguing that the negative information could have value.
...I call bullshit....
I'll ask one of the lawyers at work big there is any case law or precedence to support that
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
That contribution has to be quantified by law . What is the value of no information? Was anything offered in exchange for this information that is quantifiable? No the emails prove Jr did not offer or solicit.
Where is your crime ? F lee Butthurt?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
f1r3b1rd
https://cookingwithlegs.com/
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
VU Patreon
Maybe they are making each letter a value?
Hope they didn't have to buy a vowel
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
And yea I know more then you . And your a phony you are not for America or truth you are a trump hater plain and simple . Which would be fine but you try to hide it with a holy attitude of being for truth and America!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
f1r3b1rd
https://cookingwithlegs.com/
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
VU Patreon
Go read this thread...
Better yet ask Arthur or even time- I did not want trump to win.
I don't want him as president. Fuck, I pissed off half this thread over it.
But, this is junior thing holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
No crime here ...nothing but a waste of time, money and resources chasing after boogeymen.
If there is anything nefarious going on, it's being used to distract people's attention from a truly nefarious act. You know, like Obama used to do.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
You are simply full of it. Anyone who thinks they can say they know someone based on forum posts is clearly not playing with a full deck.
I think I'd be more likely to vote for Rocky Johnson. Was a fan of his back in the day.
Listen, I am not trying to judge you. I am simply saying the whole thing reeks. If it doesn't bother you then fine, but I don't think it will be going away anytime soon. I am also concerned that they all stated there were no meetings with Russians and there were no meetings that involved the Russian government. Trump Jr was head of the Trump campaign and clearly lied in previous statements concerning Russia. This is what bothers me.
I didn't vote for Obama because of one lie he told during the primary election on his first term. It's a matter of principle for me.
I'm not saying I know you dummy . I'm saying your full of shit based on your writing.
I don't care who you are personally or deep in your soul .
I only care you are spreading a phony persona as a caring American that only wants the right thing done . When your just a hater plain and simple .
What did you think we are on a date you idiot ! That I should get to know the real you ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again it is you that is full of it. You just stated I was not a caring American without knowing. This is simply because I don't agree with you. Incredibly immature attitude.
No it's not because we disagree it's because of what you write . You prove you would only seek "the truth" on this president.
You prove you do not even know what crimes your accusing people of
You prove you don't know what your talking about
It's plain to see your a phony.
I often disagree with Bird but he's the real deal and is honest about his leanings which I respect .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Such bs, all pure conjecture on your part with no real basis. Try again.
️
BAM 
Ha ha I'm not "trying " anything !
I'm just stating fact !
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face.
Nope... Arthur is telling you the truth.
It's not conjecture. You proved it yourself. You live the liberal delusion.
But but you don't know me
! How can you say that ! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok shoot .... which fact did I give you that was untrue ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What legal experts? Like the "Legal Anal-ysts" that are always on tv news or the liberal "legal experts" that are nearly always wrong.
Most of 'em said George Zimmerman would be in jail. He's not. Trump's travel ban is back in place and likely to win at the SC, despite what the anal-ists say.
You keep listening to those "legal experts" son and be forever disappointed.
Everybody that wants to has seen the emails. No report of Jr's arrest. Apparently they need more than that or he'd be wearing an orange jumpsuit by now.
The analysis they have done seems very solid to me. I wish they could prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt but it certainly gives pause for us all to realize how we are being manipulated.
I always thought the hack was convenient. I don't trust any politician without some level of skepticism. I have said this before. They are pretty much all snakes. We will probably never know the truth about any of the election tampering claims.
Having said all that, the Republicans are just as shady and also have not earned my trust. I have voted Republican more often than Democrat, but not because of trust. It's always a case of the lesser of two evils. I really hate this reality but what can one do about it? Blindly follow a party? Not this guy.
The one thing I am good at is being subjective. I often play the devil's advocate to see how people react. This is a flaw for me but I can't help it. There is no better way to get an honest opinion out of someone. It is manipulative and I realize that. It's a skill that has done me good being a 26 year IT veteran.
I honestly believe nearly everything we think we know is in some way flawed. Our only option is to try and see other possibilities in or to get a more objective point of view.
My distrust of Trump started long before any of this Russian nonsense. I am so disappointed in the republicans for not giving me a better choice to vote for. He has shown that he is not suited for the office he is in and I keep hoping for things to turn for the better. This is my true opinion on all of this, regardless of who else believes it.
This thing with Trump Jr bothers me so much because it casts even more doubt on so many things it makes my stomach turn. Whether or not I am taking this all too seriously remains to be seen. It just exposes lie after lie by the Trump campaign.
I also swear to you that I didn't really believe the whole Russian connection at all. Then the Comey firing seemed sketchy at best. I still think there is way more to that story. The Jr thing is almost like the last straw for me that there is any hope of something positive coming out of this administration. I still hold out hope, as hard as that may be to believe.
Okay @fraleywp
I went and looked for this "quote" above of yours. I just wanted to see if it really says that
...or if you are truly FOS. Guess what I found.....
Here's the actual quote....
Now, let's look at YOUR (false) quote...
Ya see the difference there?
See that extra part you typed in and tried to make us think was part of the law???
That makes you not just wrong, but a bit of a liar, no? You have been pretty damned dishonest here.
But adding your libtard vomit into what you posted as a quote of federal law, shows you for what you are.
... just another lying FOS moonbat.
link to full text of Title 11 CFR 110.20
I went and looked for this "quote" above of yours. I just wanted to see if it really says that
...or if you are truly FOS. Guess what I found.....
Here's the actual quote....
Title 11 110.20 (g) said:
Now, let's look at YOUR (false) quote...
Ya see the difference there?
See that extra part you typed in and tried to make us think was part of the law???
That makes you not just wrong, but a bit of a liar, no? You have been pretty damned dishonest here.
But adding your libtard vomit into what you posted as a quote of federal law, shows you for what you are.
... just another lying FOS moonbat.
link to full text of Title 11 CFR 110.20
Last edited:
Please, you are no better than he is to make the assumption you know anything about my beliefs or my motivations. You are both little more than internet warriors trying to win something. We all lose here.
hey if you do not agree with some peoples views you must agree with those they oppose.
Such a limited absolutist viewpoint.
The old you are either with me or against me mindset.
I may be against your side but that does not mean I am for the other side.
Some of us do not give a flying fuck about either side.
We prefer to make up our own minds and have OUR viewpoints, not the viewpoints others want us to have.
Such a limited absolutist viewpoint.
The old you are either with me or against me mindset.
I may be against your side but that does not mean I am for the other side.
Some of us do not give a flying fuck about either side.
We prefer to make up our own minds and have OUR viewpoints, not the viewpoints others want us to have.
Last edited:
Hahaha. You have no problem listening to legal experts who agree with your opinion. The law is manipulated on a daily basis. It doesn't mean the law is always going to win as judges and juries are people. But I trust the opinions of people with law degrees far more than your legal opinion.What legal experts? Like the "Legal Anal-ysts" that are always on tv news or the liberal "legal experts" that are nearly always wrong.
Most of 'em said George Zimmerman would be in jail. He's not. Trump's travel ban is back in place and likely to win at the SC, despite what the anal-ists say.
You keep listening to those "legal experts" son and be forever disappointed.
Everybody that wants to has seen the emails. No report of Jr's arrest. Apparently they need more than that or he'd be wearing an orange jumpsuit by now.
It will all come out in the wash and we will all have to deal with it regardless of the outcome. Right, wrong or indifferent.
Um, do tell, what/which "legal experts" am I listening to?
Ok Mr know-it-all. Your investigative skills have failed you. Here is the article I quoted from:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trum...wyer-violated-campaign-laws/story?id=48557183
But I am sure you feel you have done nothing wrong by calling me out based on a bullshit analysis.
It's very convenient to discredit all other opinions. You kniw so much more than everybody. If this were all democratic liberals stating this I would agree with you. But it isn't the case.What legal experts? Like the "Legal Anal-ysts" that are always on tv news or the liberal "legal experts" that are nearly always wrong.
Most of 'em said George Zimmerman would be in jail. He's not. Trump's travel ban is back in place and likely to win at the SC, despite what the anal-ists say.
You keep listening to those "legal experts" son and be forever disappointed.
Everybody that wants to has seen the emails. No report of Jr's arrest. Apparently they need more than that or he'd be wearing an orange jumpsuit by now.
It's the things you want to consider facts that is flawed. What is a fact? It's the most overused term probably in existence. What is a true fact?
It's not there either mang.
Just face it... you got caught, plain and simple.
And all the deflecting in the world won't change that.
Looks kinda like a Kardashian butt?
COMMERCIAL BREAK
TAP IT?
I️
BAM
I guess you are blind
Ya prolly shoulda led with this one...
- Status