The Barbarian said in post #177:
No. She hired a British investigator to find it. Which is legal.
Note that the British "investigator" worked for British intel.
Also, if Trump had hired Assange to find the Russian intel against Clinton, would that be legal?
If so, why is Assange being charged with a crime for receiving Russian dirt, but not Steele?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Papadopoulos "wanting" to get Russian dirt on Hillary]
When U.S. investigators asked him about it, he lied about it. That's a crime.
But the "wanting" to get dirt wasn't?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Clinton]
What she did is not a crime.
Why not?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Papadopoulos]
The crime of collusion is called "conspiracy." Thought you knew. So far, he's just been charged with lying about it to federal agents.
Was he really charged with lying about conspiracy?
If so, then why was he not charged with conspiracy itself?
And why was he given such a light jail sentence for such a serious crime?
Because what he did didn't matter that much to the d.s.
All it cares about is nailing Trump.
The Barbarian said in post #177:
They always go after organized crime that way.
What was the organized crime, and why have there been no charges regarding it?
Also, why was there no going after the organized crime of Clinton Foundation pay-to-play, or the Uranium One deal with its $500,000 speech-bribe?
Because the d.s. likes Clinton, while it hates Trump.
Also, why was there no going after the organized crime of Brennan, Obama and his people colluding with British intel against candidate Trump and President-elect Trump, and against every Republican member of Congress by compiling dirt dossiers against them?
Because the d.s. likes Brennan, Obama and his people, while it hates Trump.
And the d.s. is under the control of British intel.
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Steele]
He had retired. No longer with British intelligence.
Why do you believe that? Why can't he still be a British agent but with the totally-flimsy cover that he is only a "former" agent?
Also, if Assange is not a Russian agent, then can he give Russian dirt on Clinton to Trump, just as Steele gave "Russian" dirt on Trump to Clinton?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Steele]
A right-wing organization hired him to check out Trump. After Trump was nominated, he was hired by Clinton to check him out.
So what? How does that make what they or Steele did legal?
And if it was legal, then why is not what Assange does legal?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Brennan, Obama and his people colluding with British intel in compiling dirt dossiers on every Republican member of Congress]
Show us that. He would have to have gotten a lot of help to do that.
They had years to do it, and British intel had more than enough resources to do it. Also, it had already done it to some extent, and still does it continually, for its own interests.
It is not a "friendly" intel agency, but the enemy of U.S. democracy and independence. It wants to enslave the U.S. and make it a mere pawn in its empire.
God forbid.
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Should receiving dirt on one's political enemies from foreign agents be okay so long as those agents don't charge anything for it?]
Especially so. That would also be a criminal violation of campaign funding laws.
Regarding "Especially so", do you mean especially okay or especially a crime?
If the former, then would it have been okay for Trump to receive Russian dirt on Clinton from Assange so long as Assange didn't charge for it?
Or, if that would have still been a crime, then how much more was it a crime for Clinton to pay foreign agent Steele to receive "Russian" dirt on Trump?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Foreign agents interfering in U.S. politics with the collusion of U.S. citizens?]
It's called "conspiracy."
Then why haven't British intel, Clinton, Brennan, Obama and his people all been charged with conspiracy for interfering in the 2016 U.S. election?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Are you saying that if Trump's people had paid Russia for dirt on Clinton then it would have been okay?]
They hadn't been agents of the Russian state, and they paid for the data, that would not have been illegal. This is why Don Jr. is expecting to be indicted.
What crime is he expected to be indicted on?
Also, if Trump had paid Assange for Russian data on Clinton, and Assange is not a Russian agent, then that would have been okay?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: What laws did Trump's people break that Clinton didn't?]
So far we know about lying to investigators. And some financial crimes. But Mueller is keeping the investigation pretty quiet. We don't know what else might be coming. Be patient.
So Clinton hasn't lied about Clinton Foundation pay-to-play?
Also, if Mueller is interested in foreign interference in the 2016 election, then why is Mueller only investigating Trump and his people, and not Clinton, Steele, British intel, Brennan, Obama and his people?
Because Mueller and his people hate Trump and his people, while they love the rest.
So much for "blind" justice. How sad to see the country come to this.
(This is not to say that the rest should be investigated, but that Trump should be given a break just as they are being given a break.)
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: How is Flynn technically guilty of conspiracy]
According to the sentencing judge, he betrayed his country. He mused whether or not it amounted to treason. However, the prosecutor limited the charges to lying to investigators.
On what evidence did the judge base his claims?
And why did the prosecutor not agree with him?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Why has Flynn not been charged with conspiracy?]
He's cooperating with the investgation, now.
Then any conspiracy by Flynn doesn't matter? All that matters is the investigation the whole purpose of which is to nail Trump?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Why haven't any of Trump's people been charged with conspiracy?]
He was Trump's National Security Advisor.
Then why wasn't Flynn even more urgently charged with conspiracy?
And again, why haven't any of Trump's people been charged with conspiracy?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Clinton has not lied about Clinton Foundation pay-to-play?]
She hasn't lied about the tooth fairy, either. For the same reason.
How do you know? Have you seen the d.s.'s documents regarding its investigation into Clinton Foundation pay-to-play?
No, because the d.s. would not even give the documents to Congress.
Because the d.s. is protecting Clinton, while it is going after Trump with everything it's got.
How sad to see such bias.
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: What was the exact figure for how many votes Trump lost by? And what percentage was that of the total number of votes?]
Already linked you to the data. Go back and check.
Why not just say what the data shows?
Because it doesn't actually support your position?
The Barbarian said in post #177:
[Re: Is the Constitutional electoral system "a glitch"?]
Usually not. Three times, the winner in the electoral college was not the candidate favored by most voters.
Then is the Constitutional electoral system "a glitch" when it doesn't match the popular vote?
If so, then what is the point of the Constitutional electoral system?
The point is that it forces Presidential candidates to focus on the United States, instead of only on a few Dem states along the coasts.
Thank God.
The Barbarian said in post #177:
It's unusual that the results were so far removed from the vote totals, this time.
How far removed? And how is that relevant to the whole point of the Constitutional electoral system?
Upvote
0