Jump to content


DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

NM11046

By NM11046,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


schriznoeder Scout Team

schriznoeder

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, knapplc said:

Thread.

 

 

 

 

Wow! I had to read through it twice, but there's some really, really good stuff in there. Especially this part...

 

"Trump was briefed about the Russian threat on *August 17, 2016*—meaning he was, under the federal aiding/abetting statute, legally responsible to know it was "highly likely" Russia was committing computer crimes a full *16 days* before Smith set up KLS Research. By law, if Trump knew Smith was seeking Clinton emails in conjunction with his aides—and that Smith had been contacted by Russians saying they had such emails—after August 17, 2016 he was *required by law* to *shut down* Smith's outreach to Russia or face Conspiracy charges. In fact he did no such thing—as Smith seriously *increased* his effort *16 days after* Trump was on legal notice that Russia was committing crimes against America. Smith was acting as a Trump campaign agent with Trump campaign authority and Trump had to stop him and *didn't*. So unless you think a seasoned GOP activist was throwing around the names of four top Trump aides willy-nilly—and unless you believe those aides would've hidden info from Trump about the thing he cared most about—you have Trump on Conspiracy over Smith's clandestine efforts."

 

Share ^^^THIS^^^ with all the Trumpsters in your life and see how they respond.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

ZRod Offensive Coordinator

ZRod

Posted
Posted

Wait, wait, wait. How is it even legal to "get" the Hillary emails unless they are turned over by one of the recipients, which any one with a brain knows the odds of that happening are, uh... not very high. So pretty much they were going to do one of the 3: Trying to get a campaign member or other Hillary staffer to hand over emails (probably legal), hire someone to hack in and steal them (illegal), have the GRU hack in and get them (illegal and potentially treasonous). So am I to assume there was a 66% chance of them committing a crime to get these emails?

 

It is a crime to posses stole material/Info, no?

Link to comment
TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, knapplc said:

Thread.

 

 

 

Follow the bouncing ball as it rolls towards an apparent conclusion.  These frames are important:

 

 
 
Quote


 

42/ In fact he did no such thing—as Smith seriously *increased* his effort *16 days after* Trump was on legal notice that Russia was committing crimes against America. Smith was acting as a Trump campaign agent with Trump campaign authority and Trump had to stop him and *didn't*.

41/ By law, if Trump knew Smith was seeking Clinton emails in conjunction with his aides—and that Smith had been contacted by Russians saying they had such emails—after August 17, 2016 he was *required by law* to *shut down* Smith's outreach to Russia or face Conspiracy charges

40/ That's right: Trump was briefed about the Russian threat on *August 17, 2016*—meaning he was, under the federal aiding/abetting statute, legally responsible to know it was "highly likely" Russia was committing computer crimes a full *16 days* before Smith set up KLS Research.

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

schriznoeder Scout Team

schriznoeder

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Also from Seth last night

https://mobile.twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1027338771082227712

 

Looks like I can't embed again... 

 

So, Trump's first tweet in 2016 about Clinton didn't happen until June 9th? The same day as the infamous Trump Tower meeting?  That's crazy! Like Seth said...

 

"4/ Trump's tweet came 10-20 minutes after the end of a meeting he says he didn't know about, on the same topic as the meeting, which meeting was in the building he was in, which topic he'd never tweeted about in 2016... coincidences that big don't happen."

Link to comment
RedDenver Offensive Coordinator

RedDenver

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ZRod said:

Wait, wait, wait. How is it even legal to "get" the Hillary emails unless they are turned over by one of the recipients, which any one with a brain knows the odds of that happening are, uh... not very high. So pretty much they were going to do one of the 3: Trying to get a campaign member or other Hillary staffer to hand over emails (probably legal), hire someone to hack in and steal them (illegal), have the GRU hack in and get them (illegal and potentially treasonous). So am I to assume there was a 66% chance of them committing a crime to get these emails?

 

It is a crime to posses stole material/Info, no?

 

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I believe it's a crime to possess stollen material if you know it was stolen.


Well....I have a hard time believing anyone with these emails didn't know they were stolen.

The Supreme Court has ruled that revealing stolen documents is not a crime if it's in the public interest (i.e. protected under the 1st Amendment as part of freedom of the press). I think the Pentagon Papers were the first such ruling.

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...