Jump to content

shintao

Senior Member
  • Posts

    41,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    http://www.liberalforum.org

Profile Information

  • Gender
    m
  • Location
    California
  • Interests
    Slapping cons around who are usually wrong. And congrats to Liberals who are usually right.

Recent Profile Visitors

24,154 profile views

shintao's Achievements

1.1k

Reputation

  1. This has little do with Trump paying millions. Let me break it down for you. 1. Being an accomplice to directly or indirectly influence a federal election by a foreigner. A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election is a crime, and if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it is a crime. 2.Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ that would include fixing a fraudulent election, within the plain meaning of the statute. 2 USCS § 441h 3.Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity falls under other crimes, such as public corruption. 4.There is also a general anti-coercion federal election law. 18 U.S. Code § 610 - Coercion of political activity Basically, Tramp asked Russia to find the missing emails twice. Russia, according to the FBI, violated laws to expose Hillary, thus making Tramp an accomplice to a crime. A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election is a crime, and a U.S. citizen who coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then that is a crime. Then we move onto Obstruction of Justice, intimidation, and corruption. Obstruction of justice is a federal crime in which someone "corruptly" attempts to “influence, obstruct or impede” the “due and proper administration of the law” in a pending proceeding, as stated in 18 U.S.Code § 1505. “Corruptly” is defined in an accompanying section, 18 U.S.Code § 1515 (b), as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information."
  2. I would think you could debate without personal attacks. Yes, you are wrong.
  3. WOW - You get what you deliver here, so be a good boy and you won't see shameful language.
  4. None. I see you like personal attacks, so here is one for you...................Now run along and fk your mommy in the face.
  5. silly. You are the one that originally set the perimeters of this point that led to my statement, " Of course...it is impossible to prove something DIDN'T happen. " The point you are obviously missing is that the GOP's problem is that they are making assertions that something didn't happen. That requires proof in itself. Where is their proof? You say the GOP cannot prove it did not happen. We agree.
  6. Would it be correct to say the information is not false that the Judge based his assertions on? For instance do you have any proof a warrant was based solely on the dossier and not other FBI information? Do you have any proof the dossier was false? <<< That seems to be a sticking point for the right.
  7. The GOP's problem is that they are making assertions that something didn't happen.
  8. He should get off the thread like he demands others to do. lol
  9. You say possibly,... there is no reason to believe that is the case.
  10. Trump victims still need their day in court, and cons won't give them a congressional hearing for American due process.
  11. I would say both party's have their culprits, and this has to do with power and being a political personality. It does seem cons are engaged in covering up these crimes, they are enablers.
×
×
  • Create New...