• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Collusion is Not a Crime?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hmm...interesting trial balloons.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fo...ia-its-not-a-crime-just-highly-inappropriate/

“Can anybody identify the crime? Collusion, while it would be obviously alarming and highly inappropriate for the Trump campaign, of which there is no evidence by the way, of colluding with the Russians. It’s not a crime,” he huffed. “So are we talking about here the president’s firing of Comey being and obstruction of justice? And they got a grand jury on that? Is that was this is about?”

Hume is actually wrong, with Politifact noting that Nathaniel Persily of Stanford University Law School said it is a crime according to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Click to expand...

So, the question to ask is this. When will our resident Trump supporters switch their arguments over from "there is no evidence of collusion" to the new, "Collusion is not a crime"?
 
calamity said:
Hmm...interesting trial balloons.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fo...ia-its-not-a-crime-just-highly-inappropriate/



So, the question to ask is this. When will our resident Trump supporters switch their arguments over from "there is no evidence of collusion" to the new, "Collusion is not a crime"?
Click to expand...

There's the little problem of no evidence having been presented so far. At this point, for those absolutely certain that evidence exists somewhere, consider that the "moron" in the WH just now has managed to outwit the entire intelligence apparatus of the US. Maybe some evidence will turn up, but until then I'll remain skeptical that any exists. That's not support for Trump. It's support of the presumption of innocence until it's no longer warranted.
 
Next they will be saying he hasn't done it while President :lamo
 
If Trump was attempting to collude to do a deal with Putin for something like saving Europe or bringing peace to Syria or ending radical Islamic Terror...sometin like that..... then he is still AOK with me.

Are we all clear now?
 
humbolt said:
There's the little problem of no evidence having been presented so far. At this point, for those absolutely certain that evidence exists somewhere, consider that the "moron" in the WH just now has managed to outwit the entire intelligence apparatus of the US. Maybe some evidence will turn up, but until then I'll remain skeptical that any exists. That's not support for Trump. It's support of the presumption of innocence until it's no longer warranted.
Click to expand...

Someone knows evidence exists or they wouldn't be floating the "collusion is not a crime" balloon.
 
calamity said:
Someone knows evidence exists or they wouldn't be floating the "collusion is not a crime" balloon.
Click to expand...

I should hope so, I have waiting a long time for the proving of me right that Trump wanted to do a grand deal with Putin, to show at the Jump what our Elite have refused to do even though it is the right thing to do and is relatively doable.

That would get a lot of folks excited about this new way.

Which is why the Elite have shut it down.

Trump can not be allowed to win.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I should hope so, I have waiting a long time for the proving of me right that Trump wanted to do a grand deal with Putin, to show at the Jump what our Elite have refused to do even though it is the right thing to do and is relatively doable.

That would get a lot of folks excited about this new way.

Which is why the Elite have shut it down.

Trump can not be allowed to win.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Looks are not arguments.

You do know this....
Click to expand...

I would not know where to even begin. Let's just say, I disagree with the whole premise, and it certainly does not justify doing an end-around of our nation's laws.
 
calamity said:
I would not know where to even begin. Let's just say, I disagree with the whole premise, and it certainly does not justify doing an end-around of our nation's laws.
Click to expand...

I never said the last half so that is pointless and the first half "That is all wrong" is only slightly better than a look.

I am around for the moment, if you want play then we can.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I never said the last half so that is pointless and the first half "That is all wrong" is only slightly better than a look.

I am around for the moment, if you want play then we can.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that is exactly what you wrote.

Hawkeye10 said:
I should hope so, I have waiting a long time for the proving of me right that Trump wanted to do a grand deal with Putin, to show at the Jump what our Elite have refused to do even though it is the right thing to do and is relatively doable.

That would get a lot of folks excited about this new way.

Which is why the Elite have shut it down.

Trump can not be allowed to win.
Click to expand...

If he achieves this "grand deal" by doing an end-around on our nation's laws, initiating it even before being elected president, and using Russian help to actually get elected in the first place, it's not something you should be defending.
 
calamity said:
Someone knows evidence exists or they wouldn't be floating the "collusion is not a crime" balloon.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen any yet. Speaking of balloons, I saw Schiff was back on television the other day.
 
calamity said:
It seems to me that is exactly what you wrote.



If he achieves this "grand deal" by doing an end-around on our nation's laws, initiating it even before being elected president, and using Russian help to actually get elected in the first place, it's not something you should be defending.
Click to expand...

End around? WTF are you talking about? Back channel communications are normal. They are a way for administrations to have communications to see where the other side stands outside of reporting pushing agendas that are not healthy for either side. It eliminates speculation from agreements and allows them to frame an agreement that will benefit both parties to some extent.

Seeing the amount of leaks that former Obama staffers have done since Jan 20th, I think it was a prescient thing to do. It was the only way to get an early foreign relations agreement of the kind the Democrats clearly demonstrated they wanted back in 2012 under Obama, but are dead set against now.
 
calamity said:
Hmm...interesting trial balloons.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fo...ia-its-not-a-crime-just-highly-inappropriate/



So, the question to ask is this. When will our resident Trump supporters switch their arguments over from "there is no evidence of collusion" to the new, "Collusion is not a crime"?
Click to expand...

The alleged crime for which Trump says he's being investigated, and his lawyer says he isn't, is not collusion but obstruction of justice. That is definitely a crime.
 
humbolt said:
There's the little problem of no evidence having been presented so far. At this point, for those absolutely certain that evidence exists somewhere, consider that the "moron" in the WH just now has managed to outwit the entire intelligence apparatus of the US. Maybe some evidence will turn up, but until then I'll remain skeptical that any exists. That's not support for Trump. It's support of the presumption of innocence until it's no longer warranted.
Click to expand...

This is what confuses me. Trump is both a mentally unstable, bumbling idiot but also an evil genius able to out to maneuver every intelligence agency we have. He hasn't been able to keep a single story straight since being in office longer than a few days, but is able to hide his grand scheme with Russia for several months. At some point people need to realize both scenarios can't be true.
 
OpportunityCost said:
End around? WTF are you talking about? Back channel communications are normal. They are a way for administrations to have communications to see where the other side stands outside of reporting pushing agendas that are not healthy for either side. It eliminates speculation from agreements and allows them to frame an agreement that will benefit both parties to some extent.

Seeing the amount of leaks that former Obama staffers have done since Jan 20th, I think it was a prescient thing to do. It was the only way to get an early foreign relations agreement of the kind the Democrats clearly demonstrated they wanted back in 2012 under Obama, but are dead set against now.
Click to expand...
??

We are talking about "end-arounds" before the election.
 
humbolt said:
Haven't seen any yet. Speaking of balloons, I saw Schiff was back on television the other day.
Click to expand...

Lol...you haven't looked.
 
calamity said:
Hmm...interesting trial balloons.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/06/fo...ia-its-not-a-crime-just-highly-inappropriate/



So, the question to ask is this. When will our resident Trump supporters switch their arguments over from "there is no evidence of collusion" to the new, "Collusion is not a crime"?
Click to expand...

Noted conservative legal professor, Alan Dershowitz, has been saying this for months. He has argued rightly that no only has no 'collusion' occurred, but that it would not be a crime if it had. But like a good CT nut, you see this claim as evidence that your CT is valid. :roll:
 
calamity said:
??

We are talking about "end-arounds" before the election.
Click to expand...

If its before the election, there is nothing to investigate. All of this involves things that happened during the election. Quit making up things to disagree with.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If its before the election, there is nothing to investigate. All of this involves things that happened during the election. Quit making up things to disagree with.
Click to expand...

The election was an 18 hour period on November 8. The issue being discussed happened before November 8. Hence "before the election."
 
calamity said:
The election was an 18 hour period on November 8. The issue being discussed happened before November 8. Hence "before the election."
Click to expand...

"The election" also refers to the period in which Trump ran against Clinton after both were nominees. You are just picking nits.
 
Fletch said:
Noted conservative legal professor, Alan Dershowitz, has been saying this for months. He has argued rightly that no only has no 'collusion' occurred, but that it would not be a crime if it had. But like a good CT nut, you see this claim as evidence that your CT is valid. :roll:
Click to expand...

"X didn't rape his wife, but if he did, it wouldn't be a crime."

Trial balloon.
 
OpportunityCost said:
"The election" also refers to the period in which Trump ran against Clinton after both were nominees. You are just picking nits.
Click to expand...

Yes, during the time when Trump had no authority to cut deals with Russians. Now you're catching on.
 
calamity said:
"X didn't rape his wife, but if he did, it wouldn't be a crime."

Trial balloon.
Click to expand...

Wrong. X didn't collude with his brother to throw his wife a surprise party, but if he did, it wouldn't be a crime.

If you think collusion with the Russians is against the law, cite the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom