General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo I Have This Straight Re: the RW position on Russia? Edited for Flynn
Last edited Thu Jun 29, 2017, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)
1. Russia was not involved in the election at all
2. They may have been involved but they didn't influence the outcome
3. They may have influenced the outcome, but they didn't change it. Trump would have won anyway
4. They maybe changed the outcome, but Obama knew about it first
5. Trump found out about it with Obama, but no one colluded
6. If anyone colluded it was Obama
7. Trump definitely didn't collude, but there's nothing wrong with it if he had
8. Trump maybe colluded, but you can't prove it
9. Maybe you can prove collusion, but Trump didn't know.
ck4829
(35,038 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)No honor.
Sad.
iamateacher
(1,089 posts)No more needs to be said.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,046 posts)19. Okay they are Russian missiles, but they are heading for Blue Cities
20. Nuclear Winter is stopping Global Warming, which was not happening and if it was, Obama should be blamed.
forgotmylogin
(7,520 posts)...as tweeted by White House Aide, Cookie Monster.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,507 posts)he didn't do anything about it.
Trump denied the Russian interference, which the entire US intelligence community verified, for months until he found a way to lay it at Obama's feet. Now, right on cue, the basket dwellers are singing the same refrain.
25. Trump is not a traitor, but if he is, it's ok because he is a republican and they are supposed to be suspicious of our government anyway.
Can't wait until Kellyanne Conjob uses that one and the cult starts parroting it.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Feels a little dated after being here for 13 years but it's coming back around with the new oknotok.
cstanleytech
(26,236 posts)9. All of the above.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)They already know what conclusions they want to get to, they just need a few mind-bending tricks of (il)logic to get there. They love to see us democrats frustrated failing to realize they have to behave and talk like idiots to get us there.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)They are all scum sucking dogs..
Dem2
(8,166 posts)😎
ancianita
(35,933 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,667 posts)certainot
(9,090 posts)to rationalize the treason
certainot
(9,090 posts)to rationalize the treason
BarbD
(1,192 posts)well stated!
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)if no one bought into the Obama and Hillary blaming. Whom would he throw under the bus, how quickly would it backfire on him, and when can we start this new narrative?
Gothmog
(144,929 posts)Bob Bauer is President Obama's attorney and has done several articles for the legal blogs on this issue. Collusion is a crime under federal law under several different theories.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9256760
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9256768
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9256774
The law is clear here.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)Fox's Gregg Jarrett: "You can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election."
...
Fox's Brit Hume: Even if the Trump campaign did collude with Russia, its not a crime.
...
Foxs Sean Hannity: If the Trump campaign communicated with and asked Russia to release hacked emails, "is that a crime?"
...
Foxs Geraldo Rivera: If Trumps team did collude with Russia, what is the crime?
...
Right-wing columnist Ronald Kessler: Theres no violation of the law if, in fact, the campaign colluded with Russia.
...
Conservative author Michael Reagan: Collusion is not breaking the law.
Gothmog
(144,929 posts)This is not a close issue. I have seen more than one legal blog posting on the this concept. The law is clear here.
Of course the idiots on Fox News will not care about the law
Skittles
(153,113 posts)OMFG
Gothmog
(144,929 posts)Here is some more on why collusion between trump and Russia would be a crime http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/gregg-jarrett/fox-news-hosts-wrong-no-law-forbids-russia-trump-c/
Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."
Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."
Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.
"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.
To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. Whats in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.
Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.
"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, " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."
Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.
"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."
In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.
Skittles
(153,113 posts)Gothmog
(144,929 posts)I love watching people justify IIOIYAAR
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)ElementaryPenguin
(7,800 posts)Congrats, ok - you nailed it!
onethatcares
(16,162 posts)It is much further to the point than anything I could type.
If not, no harm/no foul.