Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[cerebus]

He solicited nothing. He accepted the interview someone else solicited.

to solicit, accept, or receive

 

[Garson007]

to solicit, accept, or receive

But nothing of value was offered.

 

[cerebus]

But nothing of value was offered.

Information that could tip the election in your favour isn't valuable?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

I just did...

In what universe? You supplied a partial quote that follows directly on a discussion of the non-proven link to the Kremlin in order to prove I questioned something other than the link to the Kremlin. Is it truly that hard to see how nonsensical that is? The very quote you provided proves my point, not yours

The last thing i checked, intent to commit a crime is a crime.

and nothing he intended to do would have been a crime, try again

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Yup, a whole lot of fidget spinners.

They are spinning bigly

 

[Garson007]

Information that could tip the election in your favour isn't valuable?

But the information is non-existent.

If he received information and didn't alert the authorities you'd have a case. However, he never received anything.

 

[cerebus]

In what universe? You supplied a partial quote that follows directly on a discussion of the non-proven link to the Kremlin in order to prove I questioned something other than the link to the Kremlin. Is it truly that hard to see how nonsensical that is? The very quote you provided proves my point, not yours

You flat out claimed that the NYT story was fake, and the emails never existed.

and nothing he intended to do would have been a crime, try again

As I've shown, there is a strong case that it violates 52 U.S. Code Section 30121. And then there's the whole issue of non-disclosure by Kushner and Manafort.

 

[cerebus]

But the information is non-existent.

If he received information and didn't alert the authorities you'd have a case. However, he never received anything.

And we go back around the circle again

The last thing i checked, intent to commit a crime is a crime.

 

[scudsucker]

But the information is non-existent.

If he received information and didn't alert the authorities you'd have a case. However, he never received anything.

If I agree to meeting with a dealer, hoping that he'll have some cocaine, but when he arrives he has no cocaine to give me, are you saying I had no intent to commit the crime of possession of cocaine?

Sure, hard to prosecute, but even you should be willing to admit that it is extremely ethically dubious to do so; and then disingenuous to claim that I am innocent because the dealer was out of stock.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

You flat out claimed that the NYT story was fake, and the emails never existed

Lying doesn't help you get your point across btw, you are lying, here let me help you out mr liar:

Reading Trump Jr.'s verbatim statement to NYT, as debated on CNN, makes it seem that the "Kremlin-connected" bit is nothing more than editorializing by the NYT

 

[Garson007]

And we go back around the circle again

But there is little proof of intent of a crime. You do not know what Don Jr. would have done if evidence was provided.

 

[cerebus]

https://twitter.com/JYSexton?ref_sr...ed-yates-sexton-trump-jr-tweets-russia-qa.php

Hey, so don't get me wrong. I am incredibly happy that the president's son, um, tweeted out proof of collusion. 1/
It's just so bizarre. As an independent journalist you work crazy hard hoping something will fall into your lap and...he tweeted it? 2/
And it's so strange. Last year there were those of us who were all over this story and being called paranoid. And now...this? 3/
I mean. He just tweeted it. Like it was nothing. Like, it was just another Tuesday. 4/4

I've been working on reporting on the collusion story as an independent journalist for the past year.

:crylaugh:

 

[cerebus]

Lying doesn't help you get your point across btw, you are lying, here let me help you out mr liar:

Reading Trump Jr.'s verbatim statement to NYT, as debated on CNN, makes it seem that the "Kremlin-connected" bit is nothing more than editorializing by the NYT

The email makes the Kremlin connection quite explicit. No editorializing whatsoever. And here's the actual quote that you were responding to:

Of course not. But either the article is fake news or it isn't; there's no 'editorializing' here. Either the email mentioned the Russian government or it didn't; unless, like you seem to believe, someone can both discuss sanctions and not discuss sanctions.

I was being a bit too diplomatic then, I'd bet on the NYT publishing yet more fake news in the name of furthering the Democratic Party's anti-Russia propaganda at all costs.

 

[cerebus]

But there is little proof of intent of a crime. You do not know what Don Jr. would have done if evidence was provided.

BWAHAHAHA

 

[Garson007]

If I agree to meeting with a dealer, hoping that he'll have some cocaine, but when he arrives he has no cocaine to give me, are you saying I had no intent to commit the crime of possession of cocaine?

If I got a random email from an acquaintance claiming that Pablo Escobar's cousin wants to see me and wanted to give me free coke, I don't know if I'd respond with "I love it!", but I'm not a moron. As far as I'm concerned, Don Jr. fell for the Nigerian Prince shtick.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

https://twitter.com/JYSexton?ref_sr...ed-yates-sexton-trump-jr-tweets-russia-qa.php

That explains a lot, Jared Yates Sexton clearly has no clue what constitutes "proof of collusion" hence he mistakenly thinks he somehow got handed a smoking gun when in fact he has nothing even remotely resembling a weapon :crylaugh:

 

[cerebus]

That explains a lot, Jared Yates Sexton clearly has no clue what constitutes "proof of collusion" hence he mistakenly thinks he somehow got handed a smoking gun when in fact he has nothing even remotely resembling a weapon :crylaugh:

 

[Unhappy438]

Democrats sweep 2 legislative special elections in Oklahoma

Democrats have swept special elections for a state House vacancy from the Tulsa area and a state Senate vacancy from Oklahoma City, both vacated by Republicans who resigned.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article160664109.html

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The email makes the Kremlin connection quite explicit. No editorializing whatsoever. And here's the actual quote that you were responding to:

No it doesn't, the email is a statement from another party that references a position that does not exist. The actual meeting happened with someone who has no Kremlin link and does not hold this mythical position nor the nearest equivalent position. No link has been proven.

Nice red herring though, the point is the debate was always about the link, nothing else, your statements are therefor a lie, plain and simple. Stating the NYT published fake news in no way allows you to assume the entire article has been deemed fake, all it takes is one sentence, one statement, in this case the only noteworthy statement: there was a Kremlin link.

Trump Jr met with some random Russian doesn't have the same ring now does it? The NYT did it intentionally. Now please feel free to prove (or disprove as you seem to prefer) your lie that I ever said the emails do not exist.

 

[cerebus]

No it doesn't, the email is a statement from another party that references a position that does not exist. The actual meeting happened with someone who has no Kremlin link and does not hold this mythical position nor the nearest equivalent position. No link has been proven.

Nice red herring though, the point is the debate was always about the link, nothing else, your statements are therefor a lie, plain and simple. Stating the NYT published fake news in no way allows you to assume the entire article has been deemed fake, all it takes is one sentence, one statement, in this case the only noteworthy statement: there was a Kremlin link.

Trump Jr met with some random Russian doesn't have the same ring now does it? The NYT did it intentionally. Now please feel free to prove (or disprove as you seem to prefer) your lie that I ever said the emails do not exist.

Oh good grief. The email CLAIMS to make an explicit connection with the Kremlin, and Trump Jr APPEARS to believe it wholeheartedly, and there PROBABLY is such a connection despite denials - but the last is my own inference. That's the full extent of the NYT article. Here's the article; would you like to point to where it makes a single false claim, given what we now know of the email's contents?