Russiagate

[jcd11235 0]

rushmc

Oh, and we now there's no chance of obstruction. For multiple angles including the report we just read.

You get that firing Comey was not the only thing Trump has allegedly done for the purpose of obstructing justice, right? He's even acknowledged paying off Stephanie Clifford in order to suppress evidence of a crime.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions.

Prediction, you can't and you won't!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>And as of today's date, there is absolutely no evidence that there was any collusion.

Except for the charges, arrests and email proof.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

rushmc

******

Still waiting.....

Most self-righteous people like you always are!

All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points?


Rushmc: I'll do the hard work for you. All you have to do is bold the section in your next reply that answers my question.

Question:
Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude?

Rushmc answer:
Both are true. Trump did not colude and collusion is not a crime. So you lose on both counts.

[rushmc 18]

Interesting that you're showing that I answered your question so directly. Sucks to be you!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

rushmc

… I answered …

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

rushmc

Interesting that you're showing that I answered your question so directly. Sucks to be you!

Providing spin and talking points is not answering a question. It is deflecting.


Question:
Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude?

Rushmc answer:
Both are true. I didn't ask if they were true or not.


Trump did not colude and collusion is not a crime. I did not ask if trump colluded, or if collusion was a crime.

So you lose on both counts. It isn't a win a lose situation.

To make it even easier for you.


Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't illegal as apposed to the argument that trump didn't collude?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

LeeroyJenkins

All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points?

Most don't.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[gowlerk 1,911]

jcd11235

***… I answered …

I don't think that word means what you think it means.


The WH is looking for a replacement for Sarah. Maybe Marc?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

wolfriverjoe

***

All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points?

Most don't.


Seems like enough do. They dont hold him accountable to the topic. They just combat his sporadic talking points. Ask him a question and hold him to an answer. Call out his spin, call out his deflection, call out his dodging. Then go right back to the question. This isn't the press room at the white house, we won't lose are credentials. Treat Rushmc how you wish reporters treated SHS.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

LeeroyJenkins

******

All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points?

Most don't.


Seems like enough do. They dont hold him accountable to the topic. They just combat his sporadic talking points. Ask him a question and hold him to an answer. Call out his spin, call out his deflection, call out his dodging. Then go right back to the question. This isn't the press room at the white house, we won't lose are credentials. Treat Rushmc how you wish reporters treated SHS.

So how's that working for you?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

wolfriverjoe

*********

All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points?

Most don't.


Seems like enough do. They dont hold him accountable to the topic. They just combat his sporadic talking points. Ask him a question and hold him to an answer. Call out his spin, call out his deflection, call out his dodging. Then go right back to the question. This isn't the press room at the white house, we won't lose are credentials. Treat Rushmc how you wish reporters treated SHS.

So how's that working for you?

Pretty good. Keeps the convo in one place. We are still on the same thing we started on.

[gowlerk 1,911]

Me personally? It's just not that important to me to try to make Marc answer for his BS. It's enough to occasionally point out how ridiculous some of it is and read some of the rest as a synopsis of the current right wing talk show garbage. I'm just not into banging my head into a wall over and over in a futile attempt to talk sense to Marc. I come here for enjoyment, not challenge.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

gowlerk

Me personally? It's just not that important to me to try to make Marc answer for his BS. It's enough to occasionally point out how ridiculous some of it is and read some of the rest as a synopsis of the current right wing talk show garbage. I'm just not into banging my head into a wall over and over in a futile attempt to talk sense to Marc. I come here for enjoyment, not challenge.

Don't you believe its wrong to let discourse like this to go unchecked? The us v. them mentality that Marc has. It's not Americans to marc, it is losers and winners. The reason trump is president is people we let these people come out of the darkness, we gave them airtime to spew their words.

[gowlerk 1,911]

I believe Marc's thinking is flawed. But I'm not at war with him. Trump is in power mainly because the R party did not have another candidate who excited so many people. As far as giving them airtime, they have the same right to be heard as anyone else. If they are to be defeated, and they will be, it will be in the marketplace of ideas. Unchecked? I don't think so, the resistance is strong. And it would be a huge mistake to underestimate the number of people willing to follow Trump. We did that once, never again.

You can't and won't "make Marc answer". You can and should point out the inherent weaknesses in his arguments.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

If he never answers and you don't engage his nonsense until he does answer he will have no audience.

If people heard both sides of the argument that would be fine. But they don't they generally hear their side and their side only. Anything outside of that is fake news.

Watch this....


Hey Marc:

I thought you said collusion wasn't a crime.

U.S. Code.
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Notes:

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 88, 294 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752).

This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

To reflect the construction placed upon said section 88 by the courts the words “or any agency thereof” were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216 U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court said: “The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.” Also, see United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and definitions of department and agency in section 6 of this title.)

The punishment provision is completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year.

The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association, reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages 380–392.

Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944, stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed by existing law in cases where the object of the conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense.

The punishment provision of said section 294 of title 18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section. It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable in the case of conviction for the specific violations. Such a punishment would seem as desirable for all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce.

A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser’s note under section 493 of this title.)

Since consolidation was highly desirable and because of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general application of the punishment provision of said section 294, the revised section represents the best compromise that could be devised between sharply conflicting views.

A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating to specific offenses, which were contained in various sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794, 956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title.
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”."

[gowlerk 1,911]

Quote

If he never answers and you don't engage his nonsense until he does answer he will have no audience.

What audience? We have less than 20 regular posters here and although DZ has lots of members only a few drop in and read our drivel. We are all here to amuse our small group.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[LeeroyJenkins 2]

I normally don't even have the community tab open.

[billvon 2,396]

Quote

Hey Marc:
I thought you said collusion wasn't a crime.

Then you posted the actual law. Why would Marc read that? It would undermine his argument.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

billvon

Quote

Hey Marc:
I thought you said collusion wasn't a crime.

Then you posted the actual law. Why would Marc read that? It would undermine his argument.

Yo's, the law states "conspiracy" not "collusion". Collusion is a tad after the conspiratorial fact, sort of. As I understand the distinction it's definitely collusion when you are behind bars. Until then it's a claimed conspiracy. I carry none of that to the cross. The point is that Marc is a very binary thinker and that which you may consider obvious may need a bit more 'splainin'.

[nigel99 143]

I enjoy spirited debate and honestly I have a manager and friend who both admire and support Trump (I disagree with both).

It would be great if Speakers Corner could mature up a bit. I’ve just waded through 3 pages of catch up in this thread that reads like a pre school argument of ‘nah nah nah na, I’m the king of the castle yore the dirty rascal’ - from all sides.

No I dont think that a certain person is trolling, I think he is deadset in his views and nothing will ever change them, not ever. I don’t see a need for censhorship, but a little behaviour change would go along way in making the debate more fun and less infantile (again on all sides). If we know someone makes wild ass stuff up and never backs it up with facts or corrects themselves, in years on the site is there any real benefit in continually posting ‘still waiting...’ type posts?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[jcd11235 0]

LeeroyJenkins

***So how's that working for you?

Pretty good. Keeps the convo in one place. We are still on the same thing we started on.

Serious question: Do you believe it to be worth your time?

Recently, I've found myself deleting replies instead of posting them about as often as I post because I don't think the ensuing conversation will be worth the time. Maybe I'm being cynical.

I've long just assumed rushmc was just a lonely old skydiver, eager to get any human interaction he could find. A few recent posts make me wonder if he isn't a troll by billvon's stricter definition after all, all these years. Either way, it's pretty sad.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DJL 232]

rushmc

***

Quote

Relevant information, Comey was insubordinate for not coordinating with the Attorney General when he decided to notify Congress that he reopened the investigation.

Which was decidedly in favour of the Trump campaign. His insubordination was to help the Trump campaign.

Well, while fun to watch, I agree with you that Comey coming back just before the election and saying they reopen the Clinton email investigation was a bit fishy. That said however, he did that assuming that she was going to get elected and therefore would cover his ass for the way that they did the investigation!

The reason isn't very damned important here!

These are Comey's words so in true discourse they don't dispute that it was a CYA move but he said that if he did not make it public that it would be seen as politically motivated for him to have withheld that information from the American public.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Yes. Very much a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

By disclosing the e-mails and the fact that they were looking at them, he definitely helped Trump.

If he had not done so, all of the right wing morons would have claimed a cover-up of then 'crimes'.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PhreeZone 15]

I know multiple third parties that receive classified content via personal email on an hourly basis and there is nothing illegal or even against practice about it. When you send an email from say State.gov to NGA.gov it passes through dozens of middle layer servers. For the most part agencies are working on turning on basic encryption for external mail but most still do not have it turned on yet. The Cyber Scorecard is showing red across the board for most agencies and that is for the most basic security configurations. The government as a whole is basically the worst possible option if you want to secure information - there is a reason that they are shutting down the infrastructure and are moving it to third parties (Office365), its well known that the agencies don't have the tools, man power or expertise to be able to run IT as well as a lot of their commercial peers.

Unless you are actually dealing with the policies and procedures of the .gov's and the .mil's all you are doing is repeating a worn out talking point that has little basis in actual fact.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com