• 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:
The odds are great and getting better in Muellers favor with every passing week .
Click to expand...
Of course they are. By the way I have a couple of bridges in San Francisco for sale - I can make you a good deal on either, or both.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Influence on others. That is the purpose of politics. You are doing the opposite and insuring people will never listen to you.
Click to expand...

Do you think it is wise to attempt to plant grass seed on an airport tarmac in 100 degree weather in Phoenix in July?
 
Bullseye said:
Of course they are. By the way I have a couple of bridges in San Francisco for sale - I can make you a good deal on either, or both.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you. Can you explain as your comment makes no sense given the developments of the Mueller investigation .
 
CriticalThought said:
I have heard Trump supporters on this forum refer to this as a "conspiracy" of the left wing so I wonder what they actually believe. I have compiled a list of questions to find out.



Did hackers backed by the Russian government penetrate the Democratic National Committee’s networks?

During the election did thousands of Kremlin-backed social media accounts begin to spread propaganda and disinformation, showing a clear preference for Trump?

Did Trump adviser George Papadopoulos meet with connections to Russia who told him about the hacked Clinton campaign e-mails?

Did Trump Jr. Jared Kushner, and Manafort have a meeting with a Russian national regarding the Clinton e-mails?

Did Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page travel to Moscow to meet with high ranking Russian officials?

Did Jeff Sessions meet with Moscow's ambassador and later lie under oath that he had not?

Did Donald Trump Jr. correspond with WikiLeaks about the leaked documents and link to the archive on his Twitter?

Did Kushner and Michael Flynn meet with the Moscow ambassador?

Did Flynn contact the Moscow ambassador after Obama's sanctions to ask that Russia hold off on retaliation? If so did Flynn later lie about it?

Did Donald Trump admit that the Russian investigation was part of the reason he fired James Comey?
Click to expand...

The entire thing is a political coup attempt. The Russia Collusion BS is the cover story. There is nothing more than that.
 
Some more question for Trump supporters.

Do you support the Mueller investigation and why/why not?

Do you support Trump’s comments about the Mueller investigation and why/why not?

Do you see it as a problem that some Trump supporters believe that the Mueller investigation is a conspiracy or even a coup attempt and why/why not?
 
haymarket said:
Do you think it is wise to attempt to plant grass seed on an airport tarmac in 100 degree weather in Phoenix in July?
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the very obvious. You could look at the responses regarding the investigation; there isn't that much difference in the facts, just in their impact. People really aren't that far apart. Your language and antipathy shows you are not interested in persuasion or common ground, you are into making everything an us versus them paradigm and it really shouldn't be that way. We are still Americans, not just red state and blue state Americans.
 
haymarket said:
I don't follow you. Can you explain as your comment makes no sense given the developments of the Mueller investigation .
Click to expand...
WHAT developments? More Russians indicted? Has anyone produced any proof of a "if you help us win the Presidency we'll give you ******* " tit-for-tat exchange, e.g. ANY hint of what Mueller's supposed to be looking for - collusion. I'm talking indictable evidence, something that could stand up at a trial, not "so-and-so talked to some other so-and-so" in Moscow, or at a bar in Australia, or bragged to his girlfriend how important he is.
 
Bullseye said:
WHAT developments? More Russians indicted? Has anyone produced any proof of a "if you help us win the Presidency we'll give you ******* " tit-for-tat exchange, e.g. ANY hint of what Mueller's supposed to be looking for - collusion. I'm talking indictable evidence, something that could stand up at a trial, not "so-and-so talked to some other so-and-so" in Moscow, or at a bar in Australia, or bragged to his girlfriend how important he is.
Click to expand...

The June Trump Tower meeting is evidence of collusion between top Trump officials and Russia.
 
haymarket said:
The June Trump Tower meeting is evidence of collusion between top Trump officials and Russia.
Click to expand...
You talking the one where they allegedly were going to get dirt on Hilary but the Russian lawyer wanted to talk on another subject. It lasted, what, about 20 minutes. Where's the quid pro quo? Was she indicted? Got anything else?
 
Bullseye said:
You talking the one where they allegedly were going to get dirt on Hilary but the Russian lawyer wanted to talk on another subject. It lasted, what, about 20 minutes. Where's the quid pro quo? Was she indicted? Got anything else?
Click to expand...

An illegal offer was made by a foreign power and accepted by the Trump campaign. That is a violation of federal law.

§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

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)
Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2, The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Prior Provisions
A prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title.

Another prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2, The Congress, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–187.

Amendments
2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–155 effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of Pub. L. 107–155, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
An illegal offer was made by a foreign power and accepted by the Trump campaign. That is a violation of federal law.
Click to expand...
What exactly was offered and accepted? And what changed hands? Just posting a huge clip from a law document says nothing - put specifics to that legalese.
 
Bullseye said:
What exactly was offered and accepted? And what changed hands? Just posting a huge clip from a law document says nothing - put specifics to that legalese.
Click to expand...

A meeting to get dirt on Clinton. And that was accepted to the point of even discussing how to best time and weaponize it.

The law I quoted says nothing about anything needing to change hands.
 
haymarket said:
A meeting to get dirt on Clinton. And that was accepted to the point of even discussing how to best time and weaponize it.

The law I quoted says nothing about anything needing to change hands.
Click to expand...
It doesn't? I sure see the words "donate" and "contribute" a lot.
 
Bullseye said:
It doesn't? I sure see the words "donate" and "contribute" a lot.
Click to expand...

Let us look at the law.. and per your suggestion I have limited the language so as not to confuse you

§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

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Since the person acting as the one making the contribution made promises under false pretense and ultimately nothing changed hands either way; you are left with a problem, convicting with a false premise and no evidence. Good luck finding people who will convict on that basis.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
Since the person acting as the one making the contribution made promises under false pretense and ultimately nothing changed hands either way; you are left with a problem, convicting with a false premise and no evidence. Good luck finding people who will convict on that basis.

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

According to the law, nothing needs to change hands. That is not something that needs to happen for the law to be violated.

An offer of illegal help and an acceptance of that offer is enough to violate the law and that is what happened.
 
haymarket said:
According to the law, nothing needs to change hands. That is not something that needs to happen for the law to be violated.

An offer of illegal help and an acceptance of that offer is enough to violate the law and that is what happened.
Click to expand...
You miss the point of making a false premise or acting in bad faith in the offer. There is a reason why no one gets arrested until money changes hands in most criminal events.

Mueller's disinterest in deposing Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya shows he already understands this. He knows it could possibly be used as supporting evidence of intent. But as a sole indictment and conviction, it will be a tough sell.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
You miss the point of making a false premise or acting in bad faith in the offer. There is a reason why no one gets arrested until money changes hands in most criminal events.

Mueller's disinterest in deposing Akhmetshin and Veselnitskaya shows he already understands this. He knows it could possibly be used as supporting evidence of intent. But as a sole indictment and conviction, it will be a tough sell.

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

The elements of the law are satisfied by the Russian offer and the Trump campaign acceptance. The law was violated.
 
haymarket said:
The elements of the law are satisfied by the Russian offer and the Trump campaign acceptance. The law was violated.
Click to expand...
Your undestanding of the law is tainted by your bias.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
I have quoted the law exactly as it is written.
Click to expand...
Bully for you. You are failing to take into account mitigating circumstances and consequences of bad faith agreements.

Quid pro quo is a necessary element of political bribery charges, without it convictions are extremely difficult. Simply, people don't vote guilty based on a fake profer. They need to see gain in some way. Last, even if such were given and offered and immediately taken to the FBI, FEC, and the media, would it still be considered a crime to uncover a crime and turn over evidence? Good luck with that and that would make a credible defense to the actions taken.

Again, Mueller isn't pursuing it, since you place so much unflappable authority and expertise to him, why do you think he isn't pursuing it?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
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...
Which supports my comment on quid pro quo/ tit-for-tat. Thanks.
 
Bullseye said:
Which supports my comment on quid pro quo/ tit-for-tat. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The law does not require that for it to be violated. Your comment is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom