Question for Trump fans.

[idav]

1) No. If that action occurred before he was President-Elect, it still wouldn't be illegal. Russia is not an enemy of the state, or some such imaginary villain. Technically, they're neither ally nor enemy. He's free to talk to them, basically.

2) I will not presume anyone is guilty to entertain anyone else's fantasy.

3) No, it's irrelevant what liberals think to me nor does it mean they are right on anything else or gain any credibility. If you throw spaghetti at the wall long enough, some of it may stick, but it's nearly random, lol. That's a far cry from being right about anything. It's just luck in their favor. The culture destroying ideology of liberalism in the modern day is not worth entertaining even in the minor issues that I may sort-of-kind-of sympathize with. Anything Trump would do would not outweigh the damage, IMHO. Case #1 is a nearly unable to be prosecuted unless Trump lied to someone directly under oath, and then it'd be perjury or obstruction at best. Neither of those would be sufficient to unseat a President unless you could prove he was acting as an enemy of the state. That's a stretch to say the least.

I have a question. I can understand colluding is not a crime. I know Trump is not big on ethics which is not a crime either but is it legal to collude with foreign agencies to hack your enemies just to keep your hands free of crimes? Hypothetically of course.

 

[Mindmaster]

I have a question. I can understand colluding is not a crime. I know Trump is not big on ethics which is not a crime either but is it legal to collude with foreign agencies to hack your enemies just to keep your hands free of crimes? Hypothetically of course.

Colluding as it were with Russians doesn't mean he was aware of any election hacking. Currently, that is even debatable. So, what you are asking me is essentially: He did nothing wrong, but Russians supposedly hacked elections, ergo he knew they did it so he's guilty of something, right?

No, he's not. First it's impossible to hack elections in the USA, none of those machines are connected to the Internet. Prove that people actually are influenced on the Internet by trolls, since that is the only effect they could have had. No state in the USA has a voter machine online that could be hacked. Ergo, there is no hacking only trolling... Anyone receptive to the trolls assertions would have voted the same way and anyone against them would have been galvanized in their convictions the other way even more. Most of these troll messages would have been seen for what they were, however, and ignored.

I don't know whether the false cause you presented or simply the begging of the question based on presumptions offends my logic more, lol. There is no possible causal relationship between any of these occurrences because several of them simply could not have occurred.

 

[Lyndon]

Obviously one of the ones that fell for the troll messages that were floating around!!

 

[idav]

Colluding as it were with Russians doesn't mean he was aware of any election hacking. Currently, that is even debatable. So, what you are asking me is essentially: He did nothing wrong, but Russians supposedly hacked elections, ergo he knew they did it so he's guilty of something, right?

No, he's not. First it's impossible to hack elections in the USA, none of those machines are connected to the Internet. Prove that people actually are influenced on the Internet by trolls, since that is the only effect they could have had. No state in the USA has a voter machine online that could be hacked. Ergo, there is no hacking only trolling... Anyone receptive to the trolls assertions would have voted the same way and anyone against them would have been galvanized in their convictions the other way even more. Most of these troll messages would have been seen for what they were, however, and ignored.

I don't know whether the false cause you presented or simply the begging of the question based on presumptions offends my logic more, lol. There is no possible causal relationship between any of these occurrences because several of them simply could not have occurred.

It’s amusing you feel changing votes is the only way to infiltrate a system. Hacking is illegal regardless of your intentions. Is getting someone to hack a system ok as long as you get a foreign to do it? Even just emails? Mind you some hacked our security grids as well.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I think encouraging espionage against your opponent for the presidency on national television is worthy of a warrant- don't you?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Guilty of what exactly, interference is pretty vague. Meeting a foreign agent to talk about information? Actively working with a foreign state to hack into a secure system? Utilizing a foreign former intelligence officer to purchase state propaganda from a hostile nation and introducing it into our justice and national security institutions?

 

[metis]

So far, all he's done is win an election that the Dems thought they should have won and been an obnoxious person. Neither of those is criminal.

I would suggest that much of what he's done goes well beyond the word "obnoxious". How about the word "depravity"? A fly may be "obnoxious", but what Trump has shown is that his behavior goes well beyond what a fly does.

Does having a president with basic morals count, iyo? Does adultery, having affairs, profusely lying, bragging how he can "grope" women, not paying people, illegal use of campaign funds, his Trump University fiasco, having someone pay off porn stars, etc. mean anything?

I may be "obnoxious", but I don't do the things Trump does, nor do I think he's just being "obnoxious".

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@metis I find his blatant disregard for humanity perhaps more alarming than all of that. There's some indicators there we're dealing with a real fascist on a leash at present.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I personally could never support a leader that says these things, and this video doesn't even contain the more hateful stuff:

"Part of the problem...is that no one wants to hurt each other anymore, right?"- Donald Trump

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And you know who you are.

Here is my question.

If Trump did it, if he colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election, do you want him to get away with it?

Simple question. For the purpose of this question assume he is guilty. Do you want justice? Even if that justice makes liberals happy? Or is the image of a happy liberal saying “I told you so” so egregious that you would want Trump to get away with it?

Ok, I ignore the details of the Cheeto. In a Cliffs Notes version, just what did he collude to do?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Let's put it this way. It's an oft mentioned quote, "There are rule's, and then there are RULES".

"All animals are created equal.

Some animals are more equal than others."

I think that is from Animal House, the movie.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think Trump did not get elected legitimately, but then I think he's the best president we've had in a long time. It seems the trial is over now, so I get to duck your question then don't I?

Wow. Can I buy some of that?

 

[sayak83]

And you know who you are.

Here is my question.

If Trump did it, if he colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election, do you want him to get away with it?

Simple question. For the purpose of this question assume he is guilty. Do you want justice? Even if that justice makes liberals happy? Or is the image of a happy liberal saying “I told you so” so egregious that you would want Trump to get away with it?

I think, most folks are going with "All is fair in love, war and elections" motto.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

One question: I thought Trump had said he would disband the NATO....What is he waiting for?

At least Europe will be free to ally with Russia...because this anti-Russian paranoia is starting to become an issue.

We need Russia to contain China. China has little in the way of oil resources. They covet Siberia as their northern resource area. Should they have enough of their own oil to break a naval blockade then we all need to bone up on our Mandarin.

 

[fantome profane]

For all those you are under the mistaken impression that collusion is not a crime. If you collude with someone to rob a bank, or commit a murder then collision is a crime. If you collude with someone to throw a surprise birthday party it is not a crime (although it should be).

What the Russians did in the election was a crime, they have been indicted for a crime. If Trump colluded with them to help commit this crime that is a crime.

If you don’t think it is serious, if you think Trump should get away with that crime then you have answered my question. But if that is your answer I think you should do The Clinton/Obama test. If Clinton or Obama had made a deal with the Russians to fix the election, would that be ok?

 

[Mindmaster]

It’s amusing you feel changing votes is the only way to infiltrate a system. Hacking is illegal regardless of your intentions. Is getting someone to hack a system ok as long as you get a foreign to do it? Even just emails? Mind you some hacked our security grids as well.

I don't, I said the trolling was possible / easy. I didn't say they couldn't hack some e-mails or whatever else, just that they weren't hacking voting machines. This is just your classic strawman, no need to further address it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Trump did not get elected legitimately, but then I think he's the best president we've had in a long time. It seems the trial is over now, so I get to duck your question then don't I?

A symptom of big trouble is that he was legitimately elected.
No collusion with Russia, the media or the his party elite.
Contrast this with the other, whose win would've been aided
by DNC corruption, & open favoritism in mainstream media
& polling organizations.
Our real problem is that it's a de facto 2 party system which
presents us with 2 highly inappropriate candidates.
Here's hoping that 2020 offers better than Trumpie, Hildy,
Creepy Uncle Joe, or Pocahontas.

 

[Falvlun]

I have a question. I can understand colluding is not a crime. I know Trump is not big on ethics which is not a crime either but is it legal to collude with foreign agencies to hack your enemies just to keep your hands free of crimes? Hypothetically of course.

To piggyback on @fantome profane post 36, “collusion” is merely the media short-hand being used to cover a range of possible criminal activity. It is disingenuous to hand-wave that “collusion is not a crime” while ignoring the actual crimes that “collusion” is being used as a placeholder for.

“Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason.” Source

 

[Falvlun]

I recommend an anonymous poll, because those who would prefer a cover up over justice might not openly admit it.

On a related note, I’ve been seeing a growing trend of people spouting far-right talking points, with positions indistinguishable from conservatives, claiming to be “independent”.

Republicans call dissenters within their own rank “RINOs”— Republicans in name only.

It seems we have another movement: REINs— Republicans except in name.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If Trump did it, if he colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election, do you want him to get away with it?

Good question, and I'm glad you asked it, but I think that your question is too narrow. Mine would have been, "If Trump is guilty of a crime, do you want him to get away with it?" You likely still won't get a straight answer to that question, either.

Trump fans don't want Trump to be found guilty of crimes, nor to be punished for any he may have committed, so they will resist discussing the possibility. That's been my experience.

Here's a recent group email interchange I had on this matter recently that I think typifies how I believe that most Trump supporters would deal with such questions. We were discussing impeachment rather than justice following a criminal trial, but the phenomenon is the same:

Jack: You may be correct [about Trump having committed impeachable offenses]. We will have to see what transpires in the future. Perhaps you will get your wish if the Democrats win both the house and Senate in the next election.

Me: What is your wish if it turns out that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses?

Jack: So be it.

(Notice that Jack has deflected from the question asked)

Me: No answer, then, Jack? You aren't willing to say that you would want Trump impeached if he committed one of more impeachable offenses? Let's try a different approach. Suppose a man were guilty of murder, Would you want that man indicted for murder?

Jack: If he [another participant in this email discussion] is suggesting that lying is an impeachable offense as far as Trump is concerned, that will depend to whom he lied and about what he lied. For example in my opinion when Trump lied about how many people attended his inauguration, he did not commit an impeachable offense.

(Another deflection. He still won't answer the question asked, Jack)

Me: That's fine if you prefer to not answer, Jack. Consider the question retracted. I'm sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable.

Jack: I did answer the question

(Jack declines the offer to drop it. I had made my point, and perhaps Jack recognized that. He's an attorney, and probably had a sense of what we, the jury judging him, had seen and would likely conclude.)

Me: You still have not said that you would want Trump impeached for impeachable offenses if he is guilty of them.
No problem. Given how many times you've evaded the question and how many chanced to answer it you've not taken, it seems that you just don't want to say that. It seems like it should be a pretty easy thing to say if that's how you feel.
I'm pretty sure that if I had asked only the part about whether you would want a murderer to be indicted for murder as a separate question unrelated to a discussion of Trump, you would have answered clearly, directly, and in the affirmative the first time you were asked.
Am I incorrect about that? Or would you have said, "So be it" and expected others to understand what that that meant? Or that you would expect the murderer to be indicted, the answer to a question not asked, rather than that you would want him to be indicted (or not)?
You're treating this matter like a hot potato. You're deflecting from the question rather than answering it.
And now you're suggesting that lying is the impeachable offense. Lying that constitutes obstruction of justice is just one of many charges. Lying in general is not. If it were, the articles of impeachment would serve as a summary of the Trump presidency. He's been clocked at over 5 lies a day on average:

Jack: I am not sure you read my answer below. I am not trying to evade the question. I believe I answered it. My comment about lying was with regards Bill Douglass ‘remark about lying immediately before your Response.
I will repeat my answer: “I didn’t say that I didn’t want Trump Impeached if he has committed an impeachable offense. I meant by “So be It” that I would expect him to be impeached if he has committed an impeachable offense just as I would expect a person who has committed a murder to be convicted of that murder.”
What more can I say to convince you and others that I am not trying to evade an answer to your question?
Perhaps you mean that I should say: “I want Trump to be impeached if he has committed an impeachable offense.”
“So be it” means “let it happen” as far as I understand the phrase.

Me: OK, Jack. Yes, I read your answer. And as I already indicated, I disagree with you when you say that you answered my question. I still don't know if you would want Trump impeached if he has committed impeachable offenses. Yes, no, or I don't have an opinion would answer the question.
What you said was "So be it," then said that that meant "Let it happen." You are probably referring to that as an answer. It doesn't answer my question, "What is your wish if it turns out that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses?" after telling me that I might get my wish if the Democrats retake the House.
I thought that that should be the wish of all Americans who put country and the rule of law ahead of party or persons.
You might or might not wish for that outcome under those circumstances. You seem reluctantly resigned to the possibility of impeachment, but not necessarily supportive of it if appropriate. Perhaps impeachment is never appropriate to you.

Jack: Let’s not beat it to death. Like any good cross examiner, you demand a one word answer."Yes"

(Jack has finally choked up the an answer, which seems like it was painful for him. And he called my line of questioning beating the matter to death)

Me: Thank you for your answer, Jack. Now I know. Now I know that it is also your wish that if Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses, that he be impeached for them.​

(This is a fascinating phenomenon. People are being asked to choose between their tribe and justice, an esteemed principle in Western culture. It seems to me that the tribe prevails, but answerers know that they cannot simply come out and say that they don't care if Trump gets justice if he is guilty, nor can they say that they don't care if he is guilty)