HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

Foo wrote:

Jason wrote:I thought everyone was saying Trump Jr. met with some from the Russian government...

It is the same old bullshit. Making mountains out of nothing.

"Hey, I have some information about your opponent that you really should know. Proves she is either lying or a criminal."

"OK, I will listen."

Then nothing came of it.

I guess CNN was right. It's just a nothingburger.

Headhunter wrote:HINT: It is buying crack when it's from a foreign government. Trump Jr. operated under pretense it was from foreign government. Not that hard to get.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Trump JR situation, abridged by Foo:

Lawyer who happens to be Russian: Trump Jr., I have Hillary dirt from Russian government!

Trump Jr.: Sweet!

*meeting*

Lawyer who happens to be Russian: I don't have any info or work for the Russian government, let's talk about adoptions!

Trump Jr,: Nah

if you thought you were getting crack cocaine from a dealer, but then it turns out she's not a dealer. does that mean you did not intend to buy the drugs?

Information about a political opponent is not buying crack. There is nothing illegal about receiving information as part of a campaign team.

HINT: It is buying crack when it's from a foreign government. Trump Jr. operated under pretense it was from foreign government. Not that hard to get.

Headhunter wrote:What none of you Trump apologists seem to understand is that the fact that Don Jr. took the meeting knowing all the info contained in the e-mails, saying it would be "great" to get dirt on Hillary is exactly the issue. The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

But for now Trump Jr's dumbfuckery Is just another puzzle piece.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
approaching supposed members of foreign governments for dirt on a political opponent in your own country's election seems like it should be illegal, if it's not.

is it illegal to sit on said information, knowing that it is happening?

Why should it?

Let me give an example. You are the head of the United Empire of Zombie. As head of the UEZ you have had many negative encounters with the current administration of the USA. One of the candidates in the upcoming election is a comrade and former member of the hostile administration. You have information regarding corruption of both the current administration and the candidate.

The relationship is so toxic you do not have open channels of communication. You reach out to the other candidate saying you have evidence of corruption. Would that candidate be wise to listen? Why exactly should listening be illegal? Do you see how making it illegal could be problematic. It is like saying you should only report workplace rapes to the boss of the person who raped you.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:Trump JR situation, abridged by Foo:

Lawyer who happens to be Russian: Trump Jr., I have Hillary dirt from Russian government!

Trump Jr.: Sweet!

*meeting*

Lawyer who happens to be Russian: I don't have any info or work for the Russian government, let's talk about adoptions!

Trump Jr,: Nah

if you thought you were getting crack cocaine from a dealer, but then it turns out she's not a dealer. does that mean you did not intend to buy the drugs?

Information about a political opponent is not buying crack. There is nothing illegal about receiving information as part of a campaign team.

approaching supposed members of foreign governments for dirt on a political opponent in your own country's election seems like it should be illegal, if it's not.

is it illegal to sit on said information, knowing that it is happening?

Why should it?

Let me give an example. You are the head of the United Empire of Zombie. As head of the UEZ you have had many negative encounters with the current administration of the USA. One of the candidates in the upcoming election is a comrade and former member of the hostile administration. You have information regarding corruption of both the current administration and the candidate.

The relationship is so toxic you do not have open channels of communication. You reach out to the other candidate saying you have evidence of corruption. Would that candidate be wise to listen? Why exactly should listening be illegal? Do you see how making it illegal could be problematic. It is like saying you should only report workplace rapes to the boss of the person who raped you.

Headhunter wrote:The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:What none of you Trump apologists seem to understand is that the fact that Don Jr. took the meeting knowing all the info contained in the e-mails, saying it would be "great" to get dirt on Hillary is exactly the issue. The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

But for now Trump Jr's dumbfuckery Is just another puzzle piece.

Golly, I am sure those good-hearted democrats would never listen to dirt on an opponent...

zombie wrote:if i got caught leaking hmf info to brad miska, would you guys be so quick to forgive and brush it aside?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

The intent to listen to information that could be damaging to a political opponent?

Nobody was throwing shade at the democrats when they got hold of the "Grab him by the pussy" tape. Are they just as guilty, or is this just nowhere near as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

I'm thinking the latter.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

The intent to listen to information that could be damaging to a political opponent?

Nobody was throwing shade at the democrats when they got hold of the "Grab him by the pussy" tape. Are they just as guilty, or is this just nowhere near as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

I'm thinking the latter.

Yes, the intent to obtain info of political value from a foreign government as part of a campaign is not legal.

More deflection. Another false equivalence of hilariously epic prprorotions. Stop with the bad analogies and comparisons and just talk about the topic...

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:The intent alone buries Trump Jr, and it's flat out admitted, no way to spin it. It doesn't matter if they walked out five minutes into the meeting.

The intent to listen to information that could be damaging to a political opponent?

Nobody was throwing shade at the democrats when they got hold of the "Grab him by the pussy" tape. Are they just as guilty, or is this just nowhere near as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

I'm thinking the latter.

Yes, the intent to obtain info of political value from a foreign government as part of a campaign is not legal.

More deflection. Another false equivalence of hilariously epic prprorotions. Stop with the bad analogies and comparisons and just talk about the topic...

You're deflecting. I asked you multiple times if the person worked for the Russian government or not.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Other than getting hung up on calling Russia an "enemy state", which doesn't even matter in any way, Jason has no argument and he knows it. He's just wired to defend Trump at all costs but now he's stuck with this blatant case of attempted collusion so you can't expect any more rational responses from him on the subject for a long time. A rational response would mean eating crow, and he won't.

I don't even know what's going on. I've completely avoided politics for like two weeks. But the "rational response would mean eating crow" is pretty horse shit. Nobody has ever eaten crow in the political boards. Ever.

i've admitted when i get things wrong. i've apologized when i upset people.

zombie wrote:if i got caught leaking hmf info to brad miska, would you guys be so quick to forgive and brush it aside?

Foo wrote:I know there is some sort of reality disconnect at play here, so let me shock you with a truth bolt:

Trump is an international business person. Presidential campaigns spend millions upon millions doing opposition research. Just how many times do you think advocates, contractors, and employees of Hillary Clinton reached out to foreign nationals and foreign governments to get information on his business dealings? Do you think they would be interested in corruption if approached with information?

Foo wrote:I know there is some sort of reality disconnect at play here, so let me shock you with a truth bolt:

Trump is an international business person. Presidential campaigns spend millions upon millions doing opposition research. Just how many times do you think advocates, contractors, and employees of Hillary Clinton reached out to foreign nationals and foreign governments to get information on his business dealings? Do you think they would be interested in corruption if approached with information?