Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Hannity defends Don Jr.


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I have no idea as to the authenticity of the pic.  It would stand to reason though that Russians would be in the audience of a congressional hearing on RUSSIA....as for the seating arrangements, I'm not privy to those charts, are you?  If nothing else though, it does appear that Jr. accepted a meeting with a woman who may indeed be a Russky operative, for the purpose of receiving dirt on H.  It don't look good for the kid, that's for sure. 

 

GO RV, then BV

You  have no idea of the authenticity of the picture? I can't believe you came back with that lame explanation. As for meeting with what may be a Russian operatives let me ask you a question. Is the Russian ambassador to the United States of America not a Russian operative? And does not every member of Congress the Senate and the president have the ability to meet with him? Meeting with somebody is not a crime. Attempting to get information that might defame your political enemies in a campaign is called politics not a crime. Being stupid enough to think that you are actually doing damage to the president of the United States with the incessant lame stream media psychotic attacks that should be a crime.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I have no idea as to the authenticity of the pic.  It would stand to reason though that Russians would be in the audience of a congressional hearing on RUSSIA....as for the seating arrangements, I'm not privy to those charts, are you?  If nothing else though, it does appear that Jr. accepted a meeting with a woman who may indeed be a Russky operative, for the purpose of receiving dirt on H.  It don't look good for the kid, that's for sure. 

 

GO RV, then BV

Sorry Shabs - that's normal political strategy these days ...

Hitlery's team did it too!!  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/341493-opinion-forget-don-jrs-email-its-Hillarious-clinton-who-colluded-with

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, BJinMontreal said:

Sorry Shabs - that's normal political strategy these days ...

Hitlery's team did it too!!  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/341493-opinion-forget-don-jrs-email-its-Hillarious-clinton-who-colluded-with

 

Apology accepted.  ;)

 

GO RV, then BV

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

You  have no idea of the authenticity of the picture? I can't believe you came back with that lame explanation. As for meeting with what may be a Russian operatives let me ask you a question. Is the Russian ambassador to the United States of America not a Russian operative? And does not every member of Congress the Senate and the president have the ability to meet with him? Meeting with somebody is not a crime. Attempting to get information that might defame your political enemies in a campaign is called politics not a crime. Being stupid enough to think that you are actually doing damage to the president of the United States with the incessant lame stream media psychotic attacks that should be a crime.

 

Past and present dictators of the world would approve of your last statement.  Congrats

 

GO RV, then BV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Meeting with somebody is not a crime. Attempting to get information that might defame your political enemies in a campaign is called politics not a crime.

 

Actually it may be a crime...

 

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

It is unlawful to "provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance or receipt of a contribution or donation," reads 11 CFR 110.20 (h).

 

 

4 hours ago, BJinMontreal said:

Sorry Shabs - that's normal political strategy these days ...

Hitlery's team did it too!!  What's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

 

And that is exactly why I didn't vote for that criminal either... Soon many will regret voting for the new criminal or as I like to call him...  "The One Term Wonder"

 

 

B/A

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

It is unlawful to "provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance or receipt of a contribution or donation," reads 11 CFR 110.20 (h).

ACTUALLY, I'd be interested in a link if you would please.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 3:10 PM, bostonangler said:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

 

Quite interesting and yes the left and right are guilty as defined by law... Let's lock them all up.

 

B/A

I saved my response to this for the weekend where I would have more time to research the claims that a violation of the law was committed by Trump Jr.  And it saddens me to think that you B/A are being somewhat misleading in your attempt here to prove your point. You are better than that. So how are you misleading? In that what you quoted and what you provided links for, are not from the same source. And no doubt that you fully know that. Your first quote is from an ABC news report, link found here. 

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

 

While according to the Cornell Law link that you provided the claim by ABC news is somewhat misleading as ABC is referencing this part of the law,
(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

 

Here we see that the phrase ,"OTHER THING OF VALUE", is being misrepresented to indicate information about a political opponent as something of,"MONETARY VALUE ". 

 

I point out the unwritten word ,"MONETARY", as that is clearly what the law is referring to when read in it's entirety. I choose not to post the entirety  of the law so as not to take away from the power point of this post with too much information. Those willing to seek more evidence of the truth may use your Cornell link. 

 

The ABC news story is pure :bs: living in their dreams of political ecstasy that President Trump will be impeached for this. However, as the intent of the law is not in violation by Donald Trump Jr then I can assure you that nothing will come of this for the Trumps. 

 

Nevertheless, I cannot say the same for the Left Stream Media or you B/A as all of you have lost all credibility with reference to anything political.  

 

And if this post is offensive to any SNOWFLAKES then get over it. I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION, and I'll be danged if I left some snowflake silence me. :butt-kicking: 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2017 at 10:30 AM, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Here we see that the phrase ,"OTHER THING OF VALUE", is being misrepresented to indicate information about a political opponent as something of,"MONETARY VALUE ". 

 

I point out the unwritten word ,"MONETARY", as that is clearly what the law is referring to when read in it's entirety. I choose not to post the entirety  of the law so as not to take away from the power point of this post with too much information. Those willing to seek more evidence of the truth may use your Cornell link. 

 

 

Opinionated interpretations.....opinionated interpretations everywhere.  B)  As always, just my opinionated interpretation.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited by Shabibilicious
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Opinionated interpretations.....opinionated interpretations everywhere.  B)  As always, just my opinionated interpretation.  

 

GO RV, then BV

WEAK, VERY WEAK.

Opinions hold little weight were law is concerned. Facts applied with intellectual common sense and a dash of moral integrity though will go a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 10:30 AM, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I saved my response to this for the weekend where I would have more time to research the claims that a violation of the law was committed by Trump Jr.  And it saddens me to think that you B/A are being somewhat misleading in your attempt here to prove your point. You are better than that. So how are you misleading? In that what you quoted and what you provided links for, are not from the same source. And no doubt that you fully know that. Your first quote is from an ABC news report, link found here. 

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

 

While according to the Cornell Law link that you provided the claim by ABC news is somewhat misleading as ABC is referencing this part of the law,
(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

 

Here we see that the phrase ,"OTHER THING OF VALUE", is being misrepresented to indicate information about a political opponent as something of,"MONETARY VALUE ". 

 

I point out the unwritten word ,"MONETARY", as that is clearly what the law is referring to when read in it's entirety. I choose not to post the entirety  of the law so as not to take away from the power point of this post with too much information. Those willing to seek more evidence of the truth may use your Cornell link. 

 

The ABC news story is pure :bs: living in their dreams of political ecstasy that President Trump will be impeached for this. However, as the intent of the law is not in violation by Donald Trump Jr then I can assure you that nothing will come of this for the Trumps. 

 

Nevertheless, I cannot say the same for the Left Stream Media or you B/A as all of you have lost all credibility with reference to anything political.  

 

And if this post is offensive to any SNOWFLAKES then get over it. I HAVE A RIGHT TO MY OPINION, and I'll be danged if I left some snowflake silence me. :butt-kicking: 

 

Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

 

Reading and comprehension is a wonderful thing....

 

 

B/A

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

 

Reading and comprehension is a wonderful thing....

 

 

B/A

 

 

 

As  I have already clearly pointed out that is not what the law says. Your attempt to deceive people by using ABC's miss representation is noted. You are deceitful and dishonest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

You're a constitutional law expert now, eh?  :rolleyes:  AWESOME, VERY AWESOME.

 

GO RV, then BV

I fear you have lost your ability to be objective. Or to understand simple English. Doesn't take a law professor to understand English. It does take somebody willing to embrace truth and reality. And that is easier come by when you listen to the Holy Spirit. Your insults and others insults only prove that I have made the point and won the case. As you could no longer debate the issue I have resorted to name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I fear you have lost your ability to be objective. Or to understand simple English. Doesn't take a law professor to understand English. It does take somebody willing to embrace truth and reality. And that is easier come by when you listen to the Holy Spirit. Your insults and others insults only prove that I have made the point and won the case. As you could no longer debate the issue I have resorted to name-calling.

 

Tell that to your fearless leader.....talk about bad at English.  <_<  And please, tell me where God says it's okay for you to resort to name-calling.  

 

trumptweet-BRCA-support-1.jpg

 

GO RV, then BV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Tell that to your fearless leader.....talk about bad at English.  <_<  And please, tell me where God says it's okay for you to resort to name-calling.  

 

trumptweet-BRCA-support-1.jpg

 

GO RV, then BV

I  make my post using a Dictaphone during the day. Sometimes in the noise of everything around me the words are wrong. What I said was you have resorted to name-calling. I challenge you to show me in the recent post of this thread where I have called you any name. But I can show you where you and Boston angler both have just insulted me and called me names. 

your incessant badgering and insults without attempting to prove your point shows you're serious lack of integrity and morals. Tell me where does Jesus Christ say that is okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

As  I have already clearly pointed out that is not what the law says. Your attempt to deceive people by using ABC's miss representation is noted. You are deceitful and dishonest

 

 

Dude I took the words directly from the law as it is written.... If you feel deceived, call your Congressman... I'm sorry if you don't like, but it is what it is.

 

The real issue is the Trumps are lying non-stop... If they would just be truthful, and had nothing to hide, the media would move on. Sadly, Trump supporters believed their guy was different from the Clintons, but we now see he is just as bad.

 

B/A

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bostonangler said:

 

 

Dude I took the words directly from the law as it is written.... If you feel deceived, call your Congressman... I'm sorry if you don't like, but it is what it is.

 

The real issue is the Trumps are lying non-stop... If they would just be truthful, and had nothing to hide, the media would move on. Sadly, Trump supporters believed their guy was different from the Clintons, but we now see he is just as bad.

 

B/A

DUDE, I quoted the law above directly from the link at Cornell Law School which you provided. What you are quoting is a comment made by ABC News which I also found and posted. You need to understand that just because ABC News wants to spread  hatred and tell lies about what the law doesn't and doesn't say doesn't make it law. Look at what Cornell Law School, the link you provided, says and you will understand that you are misquoting the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

I  make my post using a Dictaphone during the day. Sometimes in the noise of everything around me the words are wrong. What I said was you have resorted to name-calling. I challenge you to show me in the recent post of this thread where I have called you any name. But I can show you where you and Boston angler both have just insulted me and called me names. 

your incessant badgering and insults without attempting to prove your point shows you're serious lack of integrity and morals. Tell me where does Jesus Christ say that is okay?

 

By all means.....show me where I insulted you and called you names in these recent posts.  :shrug:

 

GO RV, then BV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.