• 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!

What do Trump supporters believe about the Russia investigation?

haymarket said:
Citing the law is not clutching at straws. It is providing the law of the land.
Click to expand...

And as you already know you have no such precedent to interpret this law, in regards to this, in that manner.
You literally have nothing.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
 
Excon said:
And as you already know you have no such precedent to interpret this law, in regards to this, in that manner.
You literally have nothing.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
Click to expand...

I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
Click to expand...
Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation yet no specific precedent exists for such an interpretation.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
 
Excon said:
Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation yet no specific precedent exists for such an interpretation.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
Click to expand...

I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
Click to expand...

Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation yet no specific precedent exists for such an interpretation.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
 
Excon said:
Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation yet no specific precedent exists for such an interpretation.


But please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
Click to expand...

I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT interpreting the law. I am simply citing its exact and specific language.
Click to expand...
Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation.
 
Excon said:
Stop the dishonesty.
Your interpretation is in that it applies to this situation.
Click to expand...

I have merely cited the law as it is written.
 
haymarket said:
I have merely cited the law as it is written.
Click to expand...

No you haven't. Your comment above is nothing moire than blatant dishonesty.

This was you interpreting the law as applying.
haymarket said:
Let us look at the law.. and per your suggestion I have limited the language so as not to confuse you



Note the first part covers a foreign national who makes a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value or to make an express or implied promise to , of the same thing. And that is what the Russians did.

Note the second part makes it illegal for an American campaign to accept, solicit or receive a contribution or other thing of value from a foreign national - and that is what the Trump campaign did in the email exchange when Trump Jr eagerly and enthusiastically accepted the offer of the meeting to get the valuable dirt on Clinton. Then the follow up meeting was the actual collusion that took place to seal the deal.

The law was clearly violated and it matter not at all if the actual contribution was ever made or received.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
Yes I have.
Click to expand...
Just more blatant dishonesty.

Your post at #60 above was nothing more than blatant dishonesty.

Again.
This was you interpreting the law as applying.
haymarket said:
Let us look at the law.. and per your suggestion I have limited the language so as not to confuse you



Note the first part covers a foreign national who makes a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value or to make an express or implied promise to , of the same thing. And that is what the Russians did.

Note the second part makes it illegal for an American campaign to accept, solicit or receive a contribution or other thing of value from a foreign national - and that is what the Trump campaign did in the email exchange when Trump Jr eagerly and enthusiastically accepted the offer of the meeting to get the valuable dirt on Clinton. Then the follow up meeting was the actual collusion that took place to seal the deal.

The law was clearly violated and it matter not at all if the actual contribution was ever made or received.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
Just more blatant dishonesty.

Your post at #60 above was nothing more than blatant dishonesty.

Again.
This was you interpreting the law as applying.
​
Click to expand...

I have provided the law and its language. Reality does the rest.

You do know about reality... don't you?
 
haymarket said:
I have provided the law and its language. Reality does the rest.

You do know about reality... don't you?
Click to expand...
iLOL Clearly far better than you do as you interpret this law applying when you have no such precedent to interpret this law, in regards to this, in that manner.

You are grasping.

So like I said, please, keep pinning your hopes on things that are not going to happen, it is fun to watch.
 
haymarket said:
Are you having trouble reading the law or understanding the law as written?
Click to expand...

iLOL That clearly is you.
And you already know that.
 
Excon said:
iLOL That clearly is you.
And you already know that.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense on any level since I have provided the law right here.
 
haymarket said:
That makes no sense on any level since I have provided the law right here.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual haymarket. There is no precedent for it to apply in this situation. You already know that.

It isn't going to happen, so keep dreaming.
 
Excon said:
Wrong as usual haymarket. There is no precedent for it to apply in this situation. You already know that.

It isn't going to happen, so keep dreaming.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your own thoughts on this.

As is everyone.
 
haymarket said:
Are you having trouble reading the law or understanding the law as written?
Click to expand...
Prosecution isn't just about reading the law or undestanding it. It's also about application of it and presenting information to support a conviction. If you think a fake offer alone will support a conviction, you are showing you can read the law but you do not understand it.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Prosecution isn't just about reading the law or undestanding it. It's also about application of it and presenting information to support a conviction. If you think a fake offer alone will support a conviction, you are showing you can read the law but you do not understand it.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The offer was real and legitimate.
 
haymarket said:
The offer was real and legitimate.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence of that. The evidence it was not genuine is that no evidence was ever offered and another topic was the subject presented to the campaign.

You can't just state it, you have to prove it. The email alone is evidence of the offer, not that it was genuine.

Your assertion isn't proof.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
You have no evidence of that. The evidence it was not genuine is that no evidence was ever offered and another topic was the subject presented to the campaign.

You can't just state it, you have to prove it. The email alone is evidence of the offer, not that it was genuine.

Your assertion isn't proof.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes we do have evidence of that in the email exchange provided by Trump Jr. And that is proof that an illegal offer was made by the Russians and accepted by the Trump campaign.
 
haymarket said:
Yes we do have evidence of that in the email exchange provided by Trump Jr. And that is proof that an illegal offer was made by the Russians and accepted by the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
And he circles back, ignoring that without quid pro quo a conviction will be next to impossible. The Russian nationals lied, they had nothing. Even if they had something, releasing it to the law enforcement and the media would have provided intent to uncover evidence of wrongdoing.

You think the wording of the law is the final word. It isn't or everyone at the meeting would already be convicted. Reciting the text of a law isn't knowledge of the law, being able to apply that law is.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom