• 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!

Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments

joko104 said:
No, because the question was not whether he would use false information reportedly gathered by foreign intelligence and Russia, but whether he would report true information from a foreign source.
Click to expand...

Yet the answer - and we have it on tape - was both of those.
 
Condor060 said:
Just wow. The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires you to be listed if you are representing the interest of foreign powers. IF what you said had any real meaning, no president or government representation could meet, deal, or negotiate with any foreign power. But I did see how you just decided to blow right past the DNC meeting in the Ukraine to provide dirt of Manafort. That was convenient.
Click to expand...

Manafort headed the Don "the Mensa" tRump campaign and he's in jail. Has anyone at the top of the Don 'the Mensa" tRump campaign escaped being sentenced to jail?

Figure out what the law is and figure out there is more than one specific law and no law covers everything. Don "the Mensa" tRump's behavior even qualifies for a RICO indictment against him. It would take a damned good lawyer to get him out of those charges and not someone on the internet who obviously doesn't know the law.

Don "the Mensa" tRump is just doing another of his brain farts claiming it's OK to collude with Russia to protect his son. Tell it to the Judge.
 
Condor060 said:
Funny how every time a Liberal is caught in another lie or hypocrisy pertaining to the subject at hand, it instantly becomes irrelevant information but thats how Liberals work.
Click to expand...

Other than your extremist partisan personal opinion, you offer no supporting verifiable evidence of your claim.

You come across as just another Trumpkin playing whataboutsim when your boy gets caught doing or saying something stupid.
 
Initially, I didn't think this whole thing was actually a setup. But now, I'm beginning to think how all this fake media and Dem outrage is going to sound when Obama's Spygate flying monkeys start going down.
There's some great re-election ad materials there, for sure.
 
jnug said:
Your post #96 replied to me even quoted my post #95. So sorry, won't wash. I suggest you review your own posts and figure out what the heck you are doing instead of wasting our time with DRIVEL!
Click to expand...

LOL oh yeah ok, the "staggering "post... you want to post that and tell ME about drivel? please. I asked you right off WHAT are you talking about, then continued my main argument. I will say I misread it an continued the main argument to you, the wrong person though.

I do have a valid question for you though... why is it that some, mostly leftist types, seem to feel the need to pontificate in their posts so much?
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
I don't know if the poster you are asking has precedence to offer or not. That is a tough standard since at least in my recollection nobody before Trump has been both STUPID enough and UNSCRUPULOUS enough to test these laws.
Click to expand...

so no then. ok. seems legal to me.
 
Hypothetical said:
so no then. ok. seems legal to me.
Click to expand...

Merely 'legal' is not good enough. It is unethical in the extreme. And while investigating his obstruction - which is neither legal nor ethical - they may well uncover more crimes. That the president is so slimy he can dodge a bullet on a technicality does not make a great case for him.
 
uptower said:
Merely 'legal' is not good enough. It is unethical in the extreme. And while investigating his obstruction - which is neither legal nor ethical - they may well uncover more crimes. That the president is so slimy he can dodge a bullet on a technicality does not make a great case for him.
Click to expand...

why is it so unethical now? It's like i asked before... do not believe that all Presidents and presidential candidates in modern history have looked to dig up dirt on their opponents? if its JUST information, and it can be proven then what is the damn difference WHO gives it to them?

I think that IF it is about illegal activities I am much more concerned whether the candidate who is accused IS possibly guilty than who the candidate throwing dirt got the info from.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Utterly irrelevant.

We have two issues being discussed in the same thread.
One is an offer of something of value made by a covert foreign agent or overt foreign representative personally to a Federal Administrator with a Security Clearance which is a National Security issue.

The other is an offer of a campaign contribution or in-kind contribution made by a foreign national or foreign government representative to a candidate for National Public Office (President, Congressman, Senator) which is a campaign finance issue.

The former REQUIRES that the contact be reported while the acceptance itself might end up not being at issue depending on the circumstances. In the case of the latter, the campaign finance laws make the contribution of anything of value, in-kind or otherwise (like opposition research), the acceptance of same AND the discussion of the offer between the candidate or the campaign and the foreign national or foreign government representative a violation of the campaign finance laws.

One thing Trump has never paid any attention to, that he literally cares about not one bit is that his position as Chief Executive and the responsibilities that come with it are not the same as his position as a candidate for national public office. He utterly disregards his position as chief executive in favor of whatever he thinks suits him as a candidate. In some ways Trump ignores both the statutes governing acceptance of the offer of a gift under National Security statutes and the offer of a campaign contribution to a candidate for National Public Office.

Frankly I have yet to find a law or rule or norm that Trump won't bulldoze if he thinks it suits him. You could convince me that Trump would purposefully not whip his butt coming out of the bathroom if he thought it suited his purposes for the whole room to smell his stink.
Click to expand...

Actually, there are more laws, like about those having a security clearance. There are ways of getting around such laws lawfully, but damn, how cheap can you be to be a billionaire and ask for a freebie? I don't think there's enough hours in the day to be that rich, hanging with hookers to be that cheap.

The mystery is why the Republicans still support him. Are they all that corrupt, they can't behave like Barry Goldwater conservative Republican would behave?
 
Anybody hear Adam Schiff's phone conversation about dirt on Trump with a Russian guy?
Dude said he had pictures of "naked Trump" :) I wonder if Schiff called the FBI on that one...:lamo
 
Hypothetical said:
I am clearly talking about the OP article on Trump saying he would take INFORMATION from Russia. it obviously applies about the subject at hand... someone then wrote an legal paragraph about taking money or valuables, which looks suspiciously like the emoluments clause to me, as a REPLY to my statement... then you came and stated that self righteous hogwash. No idea what you are speaking too, other than trying to derail my post without any real data to speak against it with.


the question was to the point whether it is IMMORAL for Trump to take information from another country, as it most certainly is NOT illegal imho. MY reply states the quite obvious, that ALL modern presidents and presidential candidates dig up dirt on opponents, so if it isn't illegal and it WAS authentic information, sure why not take it?
Click to expand...

It's against the law and there is more than one law. Figure it out, you don't know the law! You keep harping on one law as if it means everything. It doesn't.
 
Grandpappy said:
Initially, I didn't think this whole thing was actually a setup. But now, I'm beginning to think how all this fake media and Dem outrage is going to sound when Obama's Spygate flying monkeys start going down.
There's some great re-election ad materials there, for sure.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile in the real word: what's actually happening is investigations continue into the president, he keeps obstructing and self-incriminating and impeachment proceedings are gaining traction in congress.
 
Gary said:
It's against the law and there is more than one law. Figure it out, you don't know the law! You keep harping on one law as if it means everything. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

then please inform me, WHAT law is it against? (with precedence cases please)
 
Hypothetical said:
why is it so unethical now? It's like i asked before... do not believe that all Presidents and presidential candidates in modern history have looked to dig up dirt on their opponents? if its JUST information, and it can be proven then what is the damn difference WHO gives it to them?
Click to expand...

Did you know that back during the 2000 presidential Election, the Al gore anonymously received a cheat sheet of George w Bush’s debate prep and videos of bush studying for a upcoming debate.

Can you tell me what the al gore campaign did with that information?

The Crazy Inside Story of Al Gore’s ‘Trump Tower Moment’
 
Hypothetical said:
why is it so unethical now? It's like i asked before... do not believe that all Presidents and presidential candidates in modern history have looked to dig up dirt on their opponents? if its JUST information, and it can be proven then what is the damn difference WHO gives it to them?

I think that IF it is about illegal activities I am much more concerned whether the candidate who is accused IS possibly guilty than who the candidate throwing dirt got the info from.
Click to expand...

It is already established that the Russian government, through agents, cyberwarfare, wikileaks and propaganda outlets sought to interfere with the US electoral process and did so in support of Donald Trump's campaign.

If we view any efforts they made to reach out to the campaign as part of that interference - and we have no reason not to - then accepting said outreach is cooperating with a foreign power to interfere in the election.

It is not the same as paying a legitimate opposition research provider to do some investigating, which has always been done.

And once again if it's only the word 'illegal' we should be worried about, we already have Trump's fat orange ass on obstruction.
 
Hypothetical said:
like... all presidents and presidential candidates don't have people during their campaign to actively attempt to dig up DIRT on their opponents? what world are you from?

as far as the second part.. I dunno, is it TRUE that Sanders diddled children in Russia? if there is verifiable proof , hell yes I would want to know before voting for the man.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between a campaign committee digging up dirt on an opponent and the President of the US announcing to the world that he would listen to anything any foreign goovernment dug up. Is it okay, in your world, for the Chinese intelligence service (whatever it's called) developing information on Trump and giving it to Sanders or Biden or whichever Democrat separates himself from the herd? I've been told that it actually would be illegal, but since the Attorney-General says Trump is immune to prosecution (but his opponent wouldn't have the same immunity) Trump needn't concern himself with that detail. And who needs verifiable truth these days? If Trump stood on a stage at one of his pep rallys and said a Russian had told him that Sanders or Biden had diddled kids in Moscow or Thailand or wherever the truth doesn't matter, just so long as yes, a Russian did tell him.
The whole concept stinks so highly I can't believe anyone would defend it.
 
SoCal said:
Does anyone really believe Don knows more than the FBI director, or anyone mature adult?

It is clearly against the law. Don and his Cult might make excuses, but at this point we know the cult would be happy if he shot a Democrat in the face in Time Square.


"§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or..."
Click to expand...

But according to the Attorney-General Trump needn't concern himself with details like legality. He can't be indicted, not while he's President.
 
Hypothetical said:
i know the law, I want to see cases of precedence. got any?
Click to expand...

I'm not wasting my time looking up laws for you. I don't care if you believe the truth or not, I'm not your teacher. Do your own homework, I'm not doing it.

Case law has nothing to do with law written in stone. It's just common sense you can't have a security clearance and accept gifts of value from foreigners without reporting it. It's common sense you can't invite Russia to meddle in a US election without consequences. How many people associated with Don "the Mensa" tRump were getting locked up before they started asking their many attorneys what the laws are for their behavior and adjust their behavior according to the law? People heading campaigns know the laws. We still have space in prisons, so go ahead and keep breaking the law. He probably already figures he'll spend the rest of his life in prison and we aren't going to accept a pardon for future crimes this time. He's not Nixon and orange coverall will go good with his hair and face makeup.
 
haymarket said:
Other than your extremist partisan personal opinion, you offer no supporting verifiable evidence of your claim.

You come across as just another Trumpkin playing whataboutsim when your boy gets caught doing or saying something stupid.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a poster who was all up in arms about Trumps statement. Not that he did anything but his statement. I provided the supporting verifiable evidence of the hypocrisy by the left and the never ending fake outrage.

Its funny how convenient it has become to overlook millions given the Clinton Foundation by Russia, Bill Clinton receiving 500K for a speech in Russia, all of the Steele Dossier Russian components, the DNC actually sending someone to the Ukraine to get dirt of Manafort, and Obama caught on a hot mic telling Russia once he is reelected he will have more room to work with them.

The poster stated my information was irrelevant.

Then you stepped in with your claim of no supporting verifiable evidence. I think it speaks for itself.
 
Gary said:
It's against the law and there is more than one law. Figure it out, you don't know the law! You keep harping on one law as if it means everything. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

If its against the law then why is Senator Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor today requesting to pass the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act (FIRE Act), legislation that would make it a illegal to accept dirt from a foreign power and a legal duty to report to the FBI when a foreign power offers assistance.

Is Schumer just ignorant or is he trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal because none exist?
 
calamity said:
:shock:

Wow!

Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments - CNNPolitics

Rare, but this leaves me speechless.
Click to expand...

If its against the law or a problem then why is Senator Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor today requesting to pass the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act (FIRE Act), legislation that would make it a illegal to accept dirt from a foreign power and a legal duty to report to the FBI when a foreign power offers assistance.

Is Schumer just ignorant or is he trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal because none exist?

Just another fake outrage post
 
jnug said:
I don't know if the poster you are asking has precedence to offer or not. That is a tough standard since at least in my recollection nobody before Trump has been both STUPID enough and UNSCRUPULOUS enough to test these laws.
Click to expand...

There is case law, but I'm not in a law library to pass out legal counsel by internet request. Think of it like this, every law written has been broken and go from there. People don't stop doing what a new laws prohibit just because a new law exists in the now it was created.

As a scientist, hypothesis is only one step beyond observation. Something becomes hypothetical, when I or a scientist observes something not explained and comes up with a way to explain it. That explanation requires supporting evidence to graduate to a theory and a theory needs to be proven without a doubt to become a law of science. Hypothetical only means I saw something and said it means this, nothing more. It reminds me of the old 'anything is possible" argument. Sure, don't bother looking for the most logical reason, keep checking out all those anythings and I hope you have a long life doing it, actually I don't, but I have a heart. It's just sarcasm to give it up and don't waste you life with nonsense.
 
Hypothetical said:
so no then. ok. seems legal to me.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I don't know if the poster in question has a precedent or not. There is a law.... an exact precedent depends on who and when and if it was broken in the past and who was Indicted for it. You are arguing what....that this might be the first time? BULLY FOR YOU....IRRELEVANT AGAIN!

For the record there has been past indictments, prosecutions and convictions for violations of campaign finance laws involving contributions from foreign sources. I will leave it to the poster you asked to provide an answer or to you to find the answer.

Finally...."Seems legal". Now there is a standard worth NOTHING...not worth debate....not worth a damned thing!
 
Last edited:
Gary said:
There is case law, but I'm not in a law library to pass out legal counsel by internet request. Think of it like this, every law written has been broken and go from there. People don't stop doing what a new laws prohibit just because a new law exists in the now it was created.

As a scientist, hypothesis is only one step beyond observation. Something becomes hypothetical, when I or a scientist observes something not explained and comes up with a way to explain it. That explanation requires supporting evidence to graduate to a theory and a theory needs to be proven without a doubt to become a law of science. Hypothetical only means I saw something and said it means this, nothing more. It reminds me of the old 'anything is possible" argument. Sure, don't bother looking for the most logical reason, keep checking out all those anythings and I hope you have a long life doing it, actually I don't, but I have a heart. It's just sarcasm to give it up and don't waste you life with nonsense.
Click to expand...

Don't blame you and in fact I have taken exactly the same position several times in threads here. Far too much spoon feeding is expected in this forum for some reason. The information is out there and not hard to find if somebody actually wants to know about past indictments, prosecutions and even convictions for campaign finance law violations involving contributions from foreign sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom