• 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!

Do we need the law proposed by the Dems to make it illegal to accept info from foreign gov.s?

jnug said:
The Australian tip off from Papadopoulos. Oh wait, Australia has a Deep Staaaaate too and they are running a Conspiracy with our Deeep State etc etc etc. STOP PLEASE!
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it. It went nowhere. No information was transmitted.

BTW-- isn't Australia a 'foreign' country? Would the proposed law have made the sharing of that information illegal?
 
Athanasius68 said:
That has nothing to do with it. It went nowhere. No information was transmitted.

BTW-- isn't Australia a 'foreign' country? Would the proposed law have made the sharing of that information illegal?
Click to expand...

If offered to a campaign yes, if offered between Intelligence services NO.

Papadopoulos told Australian Diplomat Downer that Russia had damaging information on HRC. That Papadopoulos might have embellished what he actually told Downer about "Emails" and whether Downer assumed they were emails is irrelevant. It was still the genesis of the Investigation.

Lay down with dogs like Donald Trump and George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort and Roger Stone and Rick Gates and on and on and on....you get up with fleas. Not terribly complicated nor terribly interesting. Who knows at this point what that lying little prick Papadopoulos said to whom and when. At the least he told Downer that the Russians had damaging material on HRC. Seems unlikely that George would have said ONLY that much. What, Downer is an idiot and just let that statement lay there like a turd in the punchbowl? Doubt it.

However much George told Downer, Downer told Australian Intelligence and they shared the info with us. Really does not matter whether George was lying to Downer or whether Downer simply assumed what George was talking about was emails or whether George actually told him it was emails. Does not matter other than if you want to pursue George farther.
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
Those Brits ....such nasty conspirators....apparently the Australians as well. Unreal....just unreal.

Qanon calling...Qanon calling.
Click to expand...

The subject is getting information from foreign governments. I notice your lame attempt at trying to give it a pass so long as not Trump. Doubling down on double standards by you is not shocking me.
 
Fishking said:
The subject is getting information from foreign governments. I notice your lame attempt at trying to give it a pass so long as not Trump. Doubling down on double standards by you is not shocking me.
Click to expand...

NOOOOO....the subject is foreign nationals making in-kind contributions to campaigns not Intelligence Agencies within allies much less Five Eyes allies sharing information. Stop trying to change the subject.

The brits providing information to Obama on Trump is yet another CT subject and not more than that. Besides, Obama was not running for ANYTHING after 2012. So what Obama Election Campaign are we talking about?
 
Last edited:
jnug said:
If offered to a campaign yes, if offered between Intelligence services NO.

Papadopoulos told Australian Diplomat Downer that Russia had damaging information on HRC. That Papadopoulos might have embellished what he actually told Downer about "Emails" and whether Downer assumed they were emails is irrelevant. It was still the genesis of the Investigation.

Lay down with dogs like Donald Trump and George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort and Roger Stone and Rick Gates and on and on and on....you get up with fleas. Not terribly complicated nor terribly interesting. Who knows at this point what that lying little prick Papadopoulos said to whom and when. At the least he told Downer that the Russians had damaging material on HRC. Seems unlikely that George would have said ONLY that much. What, Downer is an idiot and just let that statement lay there like a turd in the punchbowl? Doubt it.

However much George told Downer, Downer told Australian Intelligence and they shared the info with us. Really does not matter whether George was lying to Downer or whether Downer simply assumed what George was talking about was emails or whether George actually told him it was emails. Does not matter other than if you want to pursue George farther.
Click to expand...

*If offered to a campaign yes, if offered between Intelligence services NO.*

And what if the IC was working for an incumbent President in the throws of a heated election ??
 
hanger4 said:
*If offered to a campaign yes, if offered between Intelligence services NO.*

And what if the IC was working for an incumbent President in the throws of a heated election ??
Click to expand...

The President...you mean the President not running for ANYTHING....that President? The President with 0 Indictments over his 8 years of Administration....That President? Gimmie' a break.
 
jnug said:
If offered to a campaign yes, if offered between Intelligence services NO.

Papadopoulos told Australian Diplomat Downer that Russia had damaging information on HRC. That Papadopoulos might have embellished what he actually told Downer about "Emails" and whether Downer assumed they were emails is irrelevant. It was still the genesis of the Investigation.

Lay down with dogs like Donald Trump and George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort and Roger Stone and Rick Gates and on and on and on....you get up with fleas. Not terribly complicated nor terribly interesting. Who knows at this point what that lying little prick Papadopoulos said to whom and when. At the least he told Downer that the Russians had damaging material on HRC. Seems unlikely that George would have said ONLY that much. What, Downer is an idiot and just let that statement lay there like a turd in the punchbowl? Doubt it.

However much George told Downer, Downer told Australian Intelligence and they shared the info with us. Really does not matter whether George was lying to Downer or whether Downer simply assumed what George was talking about was emails or whether George actually told him it was emails. Does not matter other than if you want to pursue George farther.
Click to expand...

The intelligence agencies exist to give information to the president to assist him in making foreign policy decisions. That's their function. If President Macron were to tell Trump that France had information on the 2020 Democratic candidate, it would be no different than if French intelligence told that info to their American counterpart. How does President Trump react? Different from candidate Trump?

As an aside, it's not irrelevant at all whether PapaD spoke about emails or just damaging information (Mifsud denied to Mueller that he told PapaD it was emails. Mifsud was never charged with perjury). The claim had been that the Trump campaign had advanced knowledge of the Wikileaks dumps, which, so the theory went, PapaD showed the conspiracy during that drunken stupor of his. If it's not emails, then it's yet another nail in the coffin wherein lies 'conspiracy.'
 
OscarLevant said:
Well, the emoluments clause in the Constitution makes it clear, but if there is any doubt, a new bill should do the trick.

But, I doubt McConnell is going to let it see the light of day.
Click to expand...

McConnell is Trump's total flunky because his wife is raking in the dough in her capacity of Secretary of Transportation. He's riding the gravy train, and couldn't give two hoots about the country.
 
apdst said:
You still believe that horse****? :lamo

You do know that Mueller cleared everyone of collusion. Right?

That dog just ain't gonna hunt no more.
Click to expand...

Could you please cite the part of the Mueller report that cleared everyone of collusion?
 
JMR said:
McConnell is Trump's total flunky because his wife is raking in the dough in her capacity of Secretary of Transportation. He's riding the gravy train, and couldn't give two hoots about the country.
Click to expand...

Surely It's a Coincidence That a Firm Tied to a Russian Oligarch Is Pouring Millions Into Kentucky, Paul Manafort's boss no less....Oleg Deripaska. Plus his wife's uncle was busted for cocaine trafficking out of Santa Marta, Colombia. His freighter ship was raided and 90 pounds of cocaine was found. That's why Mitch McConnell earned the nickname "Cocaine Mitch"

Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska's Firm Pours Millions into Kentucky After Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul Vote Against Sanctions
 
jnug said:
The President...you mean the President not running for ANYTHING....that President? The President with 0 Indictments over his 8 years of Administration....That President? Gimmie' a break.
Click to expand...

I just asked you a simple question, I referred to no one in particular. Wanna try again ?? or are more interested in slinging partsian tripe ??
 
jnug said:
NOOOOO....the subject is foreign nationals making in-kind contributions to campaigns not Intelligence Agencies within allies much less Five Eyes allies sharing information. Stop trying to change the subject.

The brits providing information to Obama on Trump is yet another CT subject and not more than that. Besides, Obama was not running for ANYTHING after 2012. So what Obama Election Campaign are we talking about?
Click to expand...

It's not a CT anything but openly admitted and known. Further, it still does not negate that a foreign government was sending dirt to administration antagonistic of a political campaign. No matter how much you try and hem and haw, nothing will change that.
 
JMR said:
Could you please cite the part of the Mueller report that cleared everyone of collusion?
Click to expand...

The part that says there's "no evidence that any American illegally coordinated with Russia". It's been all over the news.
 
jnug said:
NOOOOO....the subject is foreign nationals making in-kind contributions to campaigns not Intelligence Agencies within allies much less Five Eyes allies sharing information. Stop trying to change the subject.

The brits providing information to Obama on Trump is yet another CT subject and not more than that. Besides, Obama was not running for ANYTHING after 2012. So what Obama Election Campaign are we talking about?
Click to expand...

If it's already illegal, why is Congress passing a law to make it illegal?
 
JMR said:
This op ed writer forgot to mention that as Steele collected his information, he passed it all on to British and American intelligence agencies. Which is the point people argue about Trump...he should have passed any and all information to the FBI. He still claims he doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

He doesn't. There is no law mandating it.
We can probably he ought have.
But nobody complained when the Obama Admin used foreign information it received about Trump.
 
JMR said:
This op ed writer forgot to mention that as Steele collected his information, he passed it all on to British and American intelligence agencies. Which is the point people argue about Trump...he should have passed any and all information to the FBI. He still claims he doesn't have to.
Click to expand...

Trump didn't get anything. :lamo
 
apdst said:
The part that says there's "no evidence that any American illegally coordinated with Russia". It's been all over the news.
Click to expand...

Please cite that sentence in the report. It' been all over the news. It doesn't say that.
Mr. Mueller found “insufficient evidence” to charge a criminal conspiracy between the Russian government and the campaign. But the campaign was clearly keeping a close eye on Russia-linked hacking and leaking efforts and expecting to benefit from them.
Click to expand...
 
JMR said:
Please cite that sentence in the report. It' been all over the news. It doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

That's what it says. No conspiracy. They kept on eye on what Wikileaks was up to? So what. So did everyone else.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That's what it says. No conspiracy. They kept on eye on what Wikileaks was up to? So what. So did everyone else.
Click to expand...

No where does it say there was no conspiracy. It says they were unable to prove a conspiracy. No where does it say there was no evidence of a conspiracy, in fact it says there was considerable evidence.
 
apdst said:
Can you prove Trump received information from the Russians?
Click to expand...

Can you prove he didn't? His rather dull brained son met with Russian agents in order to get dirt. Oh wait, they discussed adoption!! A LIE created by Trump to cover the meeting's true purpose. Why did Trump lie about a meeting he knew nothing about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom