Become a Patron!
GOVERNMENT WATCH!!
- Thread starter ej1024
- Start date
- Status
Sarcasm.Lol
Pence??
Fuck no!
Research what he did in the state of idiana!
The guy is with big tobaccos bro... he gets a lot of campaign money from them... he's another bullshiter all of them are bullshiters.
Fuck em all!
I️
BAM
All republicans are supposed to be pro vaping and all demoncrats are supposed to be anti vaping dontchknow?
do not forget China and Kushner promising visas for investing in NY real estate.That's obvious bro....
And the fan boys can't see it...
That QATAR/KUSHNER thing?
All of a sudden Qatar support terrorist cuz they wouldn't loan KUSHNER?!
Come on now!
I already said when trump started talking shit about Qatar, its all BULLSHIT!
All of them are professional bullshiters!!
I
And the Chinese shoe patent in record time for the Trump gal.
Tax dollars renting space in Trump Tower.
has the president golfed at any course he does not own since becoming president?
Yes my bad was a Trademark not a Patent.EB-5 visa?
Chinese chicken
Trump beef?
Ivankas trademarks?
I
Not even sure that China has patents?
China will patent their own
But they wouldn't Patent any foreign inventions... we all know why.
They fucking steal!
I
️
BAM 
There you go. I asked a simple question and you give me mealy mouthed made up scenarios.
If she's lying about her true relationship with the Russian government, in other words she is a spy, the CIA is doing a piss poor job and the Obama administration seriously fucked up when they gave her a special VISA and let her sit in on a Congressional hearing. I'm afraid you may have watched too many James Bond movies.
Another episode of avoiding the answer. The fact is they would have already used the excuse that they knew she wasn't affiliated with the government had they known when they first started lieing about it.
Avoiding the answer to what? You didn't ask a fucking question, I did.
Did Jr meet with a Russian working for the Russian government?
Ahh how some love to argue just for the sake of arguing.
Becomes kind of boring entertainment though.
Becomes kind of boring entertainment though.
Avoidance seems to be a skill for you. Would it be lieing or not. And don't act like you don't know the question.
They knew they had the meeting and were not aware the woman was lieing when first asked if the Trump campaign had any communication with the Russians months ago. They said no. They lied.
It's not about his view point he is stating that there was criminal activity when there was none . What the fuck is so hard about that ? Nobody is stopping you from your views ! Or your right to hate . Simply pointing out what is real and what is thought to be real ! You both say your for truth but if confronted with truths you cry I have a right to my thoughts or you don't know what type of person I am ! It's fucking ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That was all a viewpoint.
What is real what is not, what is fact, what is not.
In politics it is pretty much just all viewpoints that are mostly faith based and not based in facts or logic.
Wow your as thick as your buddy !
It's a FACT Jr violated no law .
Not opinion
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just proved my point about being mostly faith based.
Thanks.
Thanks.
The fact is he admitted to an activity that appears to incriminate him. Only a prosecution can make that a fact he broke the law. You saying it isn't a fact is just as incorrect as we don't know that yet.
Just mincing words and creating a he said she said argument allows you to avoid all the tough questions around what really happened. An open minded person would not quickly dismiss it as no big deal. That just means you want it to be no big deal.
I simply stated the law numbnutz . Your the one mincing words ! And no a prosecutor does not decide, he needs proof the person violated a law ! And which law he violated . Just because you find what someone did is distasteful does not mean they broke a law !
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What law did you state exactly. The "no law" law?
I said a prosecution not a prosecutor, genius
Ok last time !
You stated Jr solicited information
As his email trail shows he did not initiate the offer of info .
You stated the information was a value breaking donation law
There was no information given or was there anything offered in return for information.nothing of quantifiable value was given or received which would violate the law .
Can you understand this ? It's not my opinion it is what the facts are .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is not what the facts are. The facts are he was approached via email by a purported Russian government affiliate with an offer of damaging information of an opponent in the presidential election. He solicited by extending the invite to meet with said agent. He then expressed gratitude for the valuable information they were going to provide. At this point the intent was fully established. Then he actually met with this person. The fact the information turned out bogus changes nothing.
Essentially you are arguing the wrong facts. On the surface we can not 100% declare the law was broken as it requires an investigation and prosecution to make it a fact or not. Regardless of that, you are saying you see nothing wrong with any of this.
If this were Hillary or Obama you would be beside yourself. As would I. But since you don't care that the Trump campaign is shady, even though you care that Hillary is, makes you a hypocrite.
Yep Trump is as great as Reagan.
Ok let's take your facts
HE WAS APPROACHED by email . Right there you prove he did not Solicit for the information . HE EXPRESSED HIS Gratitude .what was the quantifiable value of his words ? $0
He took the meeting nothing of value was exchanged .
Was it smart no , is it criminal no .
Understand?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not accurate at all. He should have said no and notified the FBI. Instead he requested a meeting. Value is not simply monetary exchange. He expressed his gratitude for the information he requested to be brought to the meeting.
Last edited:
It's your accounting of what happened!
To break the law your accusing him of breaking there has to be a quantifiable value of what was exchanged! So him saying "I love it' what is the value ? Was any power money or favors exchanged ? No .
What value do you place on those words if you were making a case for prosecution?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To break the law your accusing him of breaking there has to be a quantifiable value of what was exchanged! So him saying "I love it' what is the value ? Was any power money or favors exchanged ? No .
What value do you place on those words if you were making a case for prosecution?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You say it has to be quantifiable but everything I have seen on the matter says the value only has to be perceived. There is no measurement of the value in the law, it is ANY value.
Yes there is measure of value you dope !
So if it's ANY VALUE what is the Value?
How do you determine severity or damages if you don't quantify value ? Isn't the donation law about value? Something for something ?
Are you confused about legality and morality? Because they are 2 different things .
You know I'm right . You can't even agree with your own accounting of what happened. Just come clean, you want him prosecuted because you don't like him . Your not about Truth or Law your about fucking over someone that you don't agree with or feel should be in power . Your using this as a guise for your hate . Stevie Wonder can see that .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus, the value would be judged during the investigation and prosecution if it came to it. If it provided them the edge they wanted how much would that be worth? Exactly, not all value can be put in a number.
Last edited:
But as your accounting of what happened states he received NOTHING . 0 value !
So why would you investigate to prosecute ?
Are you kidding me ? Not all value can be put in a number ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that all you can do is go around in circles. It isn't about the value at the end. It's about the value he thought he would get from it that made him commit the act. This is not unique to this situation. Did you not have to take a criminal law course in college?
And it just gets more murky.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/russia-lobbyist-rinat-akhmetshin-us-investigation-240562
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/14/russia-lobbyist-rinat-akhmetshin-us-investigation-240562
Ahh no answer you cite CFR 110.20 as the law Jr broke . You said he solicited info which he did not .
To solicit.
To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. 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. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.
Also there was no transfer of anything of value or perceived value .
This is all I'm saying . This law does not apply as you would like it too .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've come to the conclusion you're just dumb.
Here are the facts that are real and not made up; Natalia is not working for the Russian government. Jr did not meet with a person working for the Russian government. Those are facts.
You have to make up shit like Natalia is some kind of James bond Russian spy to try and convince people he lied. He didn't fucking lie.That's why you won't answer my simple question, did Jr meet with a person working for the Russian government? No he did not.
And I don't where you think I'm avoiding any question you've asked. I've clearly stated that he did not lie. Maybe if you ask the question again, I'll tell you again that he didn't lie.
Since you all stated I am no legal expert to dismiss my views I am returning the favor.
As it turns out they forgot to disclose another attendee from that meeting who does have ties to the Russian government. But hey, I am sure you can dismiss that as well. Ignorance is bliss.
Not disclosing another Russian present at the meeting who does have ties to the Russian government is in conflict with your assessment of his lies.
LOL.
You might want to look up the word "context" as it pertains to laws. Words such as "value" are largely narrowed down in definition by the context of the law.
I'll explain one more time, but I beginning to believe you are too daft to understand much.
There is "value" in ANYTHING a foreign National would contribute to a campaign as a service. The Ausies that volunteered to work on the Hitlery campaign offered "value" to the campaign. Their work was "value". Elton John's fundraising was "value". These are not illegal because value in the context of the law does not include such services. This is precedent(look that word up too). It has already been ruled on and is accepted. A foreign national adding value in the form of services is not illegal because the word value, in context of the law, does not mean the overly broad definition you are trying to apply to it.
Now you can chose to believe whatever nonsense you read on the internet or see some "expert" on the tv spewing, but as I said from the beginning, you are going to be YUGELY disappointed in the end.
When you produce a legal degree for all to see I will apply the weight you think you deserve on your legal opinion. Not before.
It's Friday. I refuse to argue with a man in a sun dress.
And that was a lot of typing to say nothing revealing at all.
I'm not dismissing your views . I'm showing you you have interpreted this law incorrectly and it does not apply !
Can't you be a man and acknowledge you may be incorrect?
I'm not attacking your beliefs I'm pointing out what the law states it has nothing to do with your beliefs . Mr open mind .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean the US citizen? He is a citizen of the US, right?
As soon as you acknowledge you could be misinterpreting I will.
He has dual citizenship and is a lobbyist for Russia.
- Status