Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

[Carbon]

I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.

https://goo.gl/cNBSBK

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-01 3:53 PM, Carbon wrote:
> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>
> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>

His lawyer said last month he had "nothing to do with it"...

...then this...

...now they're backpedaling to that he offered his son some fatherly advice.

:-)

[michae...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:53:16 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>
> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK

If you're really nice, you will respond to the other Asshole, Shit Stain.

IT needs all the help IT can get. That's what Butt Buddies are for.

[Dene]

I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.

https://goo.gl/cNBSBK

Russia, Russia, Russia.

[Carbon]

Trump also doesn't understand what a big deal this is. I can only imagine the twitter rants when the subpoenas arrive.

[Alan Baker]

Who are you and what have you done with the real Greg?

[B...@onramp.net]

Get used to it. Not going away.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:25:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>>
>> Russia, Russia, Russia.
>>
>

>The fools can't help themselves.
Agreed!!!
You're talking about the Trump gang I'm sure.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:47:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

>> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>>
>

>Obviously Carbon did not read his own cite which states there was
> no crime.

You buy anything said on the Internet when you want to believe it...
You just aren't very bright.
>
>Obstruction of justice involves things like:
>
>Destroying emails under subpoena.
There's time for them to do that.
>Bleachbit documents from your hard drive.
Not a crime.
>Lying to Congress.
Or to a Special Counsel
>Pressuring FBI to call an investigation a matter.
Or to drop an investigation on an ex member of your cabinet.
>Tarmac meetings with the Atty General.
Not a crime.

But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
father's opponent is.

[Dene]

But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
father's opponent is.

BS. Cite the statute.
I'll save you some time.
There is nothing illegal about having a conversation about any subject.

[Alan Baker]

You are so wrong.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 9:12 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:47:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>>>>
>>>> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously Carbon did not read his own cite which states there was
>>> no crime.
>>
>> You buy anything said on the Internet when you want to believe it...
>> You just aren't very bright.
>

> I am obviously more concerned about factual information than Dims
> are. I don't stop at the headline.

>
>>>
>>> Obstruction of justice involves things like:
>>>
>>> Destroying emails under subpoena.
>> There's time for them to do that.
>>> Bleachbit documents from your hard drive.
>> Not a crime.
>>> Lying to Congress.
>> Or to a Special Counsel
>>> Pressuring FBI to call an investigation a matter.
>> Or to drop an investigation on an ex member of your cabinet.
>>> Tarmac meetings with the Atty General.
>> Not a crime.
>>
>> But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
>> father's opponent is.
>>
>

> It isn't actually.

Soliciting a foreign government to aid in a US election...

>
> If there was follow through and payments to foreign agents for a
> dossier like the Dims did that might be a crime.

Got any proof that happened.

And you seem to define "foreign agent" very conveniently.

>
> It is obvious your sense of what constitutes a crime is based
> solely on who did it.
>
> You are a serial liar.
>

[B...@onramp.net]

I don't need time.
Collusion with a foreign entity to use information to rig an American
election. The fact that it wasn't delivered or used has no bearing.
Mueller will have a ball with this.

[MNMikeW]

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>> Tarmac meetings with the Atty General.
> Not a crime.
>
> But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
> father's opponent is.

But this isn't apparently.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 11:12:57 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:47:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>>>>
>>>> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously Carbon did not read his own cite which states there was
>>> no crime.
>>
>> You buy anything said on the Internet when you want to believe it...
>> You just aren't very bright.
>

>I am obviously more concerned about factual information than Dims
> are. I don't stop at the headline.

LOL. That's exactly what you do. Oh, dim is what you are. Dems is
what you're looking for.

>
>>>
>>>Obstruction of justice involves things like:
>>>
>>>Destroying emails under subpoena.
>> There's time for them to do that.
>>>Bleachbit documents from your hard drive.
>> Not a crime.
>>>Lying to Congress.
>> Or to a Special Counsel
>>>Pressuring FBI to call an investigation a matter.
>> Or to drop an investigation on an ex member of your cabinet.
>>>Tarmac meetings with the Atty General.
>> Not a crime.
>>
>> But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
>> father's opponent is.
>>
>

>It isn't actually.

>
>If there was follow through and payments to foreign agents for a
> dossier like the Dims did that might be a crime.

The act of expecting such a discussion is the same.

>
>It is obvious your sense of what constitutes a crime is based
> solely on who did it.

Wrong.

[B...@onramp.net]

You pressed Send too soon :-)

[B...@onramp.net]

Do you honestly think this is at all comparable? An
American-Ukrainian gathered information unsolicited by the DNC. Then
reported it to the Ukranian Embassy in the U.S.
From there the Ukranian government got involved.

Now, if Chelsea Clinton had met with them to gain this
information.....it would be a parallel.

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2017 12:20:11 -0500, MNMikeW<mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>
>>>> Tarmac meetings with the Atty General.
>>> Not a crime.
>>>
>>> But making an appointment with a foreigner to gather dirt on your
>>> father's opponent is.
>>
>> But this isn't apparently.
>>
>> http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
>>
> Do you honestly think this is at all comparable? An
> American-Ukrainian gathered information unsolicited by the DNC.

"A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic
National Committee"

[B...@onramp.net]

Her consulting had nothing to do with the election. When she happened
on Manafort's situation she forwarded it to the DNC and kept that
going...unsolicited. The report was full of the regular nameless
people being quoted too.

Since she's an American citizen there could be charges against her I
guess.

But she wasn't the presidential candidate's daughter.

[John B.]

Yes there is. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,
it is illegal to foreign nationals to have material discussions
with representatives of a federal campaign without registering
as agent of a foreign government. Under federal election law, it is
illegal for a campaign representative to arrange any sort of
quid pro quo with a foreign national that is attempting to
influence the outcome of an election.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:26:51 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>He did not read the entire cite.


Yes I did, and then went back over it to make sure I hadn't missed
anything.

You can butt out of this string because you're to dumb to comprehend
what we're talking about.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:28:13 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>So no statute?

Do you see one?

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

I don't need time.
Collusion with a foreign entity to use information to rig an American
election. The fact that it wasn't delivered or used has no bearing.
Mueller will have a ball with this.

No cite...no facts. Your assumption is like a cop citing a Corvette driver with 'intent to speed."
If they had done something with info, different story. Hearing it is not a crime....except to haters.

[Dene]

Yes there is. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,
it is illegal to foreign nationals to have material discussions
with representatives of a federal campaign without registering
as agent of a foreign government. Under federal election law, it is
illegal for a campaign representative to arrange any sort of
quid pro quo with a foreign national that is attempting to
influence the outcome of an election.

There is nothing here that prohibits a conversation.
Nice try!

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:36:24 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Nope.
>
>FYI, It can't be against the law if there is no law against it.

There's a law against it. I don't have the time to look it up. Check
John B's last post. He quotes it.

[B...@onramp.net]

As usual your crock of shit. If you had been keeping up with this you
would have seen this several times. I don't have the interest or time
to screw with it. John B has a post today that gives you some of the
info. And fuck your "haters" crap.

[B...@onramp.net]

Are you losing your mind? It was more than a conversation and anyone
with a smidgen of common sense knows it. Trump Jr. wanted to get dirt
on Hillary. Then he lied about the call when his crooked daddy
suggested that he said the meeting was about orphans.

The Trumps are low-life gangsters and you take up for them. I shudder
to think why.

[MNMikeW]

If no "dirt" exchanged hands, it was just a conversation.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 15:04:52 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>So no statute.
Can't you read?

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 15:05:49 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>Hater gonna hate.

Loser gonna lose.

[B...@onramp.net]

Wrong. You're smarter than that.

[B...@onramp.net]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026

[MNMikeW]

Allow me to pull a Bobby and bitch about all your left wing cites.

[-hh]

MNMikeW wrote:

> If no "dirt" exchanged hands, it was just a conversation

The cite says "material discussions". So then you're claiming that a "conversation" isn't a discussion?

What's already been disclosed is that they showed up at a meeting where the agenda was to
meet with known foreign nationals and with "dirt" as the topic. That is the relevant dailog: just like if one
tries to rob a bank but gets no cash, the delivery of actual material is not legally required.


-hh

[Carbon]

On 08/01/2017 10:18 PM, Dene wrote:
> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>
> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>

> Russia, Russia, Russia.

Correct.

[B...@onramp.net]

All I did was google "did Trump Jr. break the law" and copied the
first four links. They weren't picked out for any partisan feelings.
I'll go back and start where I left off and this time I'll check the
sites and skip the obvious ones that are left wing in your opinion.
The overall thought is that he put himself in jeopardy by crossing the
line to illegal collusion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/16/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-donald-trump-jr-s-russia-meeting-legal/482606001/

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-14/former-soviet-spy-attended-meeting-with-donald-trump-jr-and-russian-lawyer

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/17/donald-trump-jr-s-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-what-to-know.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/10/donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting-legal-danger-240370

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:44:42 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Enjoy your Easter Egg hunt.

Haha...I'd love to be there if you met Trump. You'd have his pants
down in a nanosecond.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:54:04 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>Looks like Donald Jr. Is in the clear.
>
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Bad link

[Dene]

Ah...typical response from you when you get caught in your own bullshit.
It is not illegal to have a conversation with anybody in this country.
Deal with it.

[Dene]

$100 says there is no indictment for a violation of this statute as pertains to the meeting in question. You, Bobby, and John should either put up or shut up.

Highly recommend you all utilize shut up option.

[John B.]

A conversation? Are you that naive? There were multiple meetings
between Russian nationals and Trump campaign officials during the
campaign. There have been multiple lies told by campaign officials
about those meetings. They have denied that they even took place.
What occurred rises well above the level of "conversation."

[Dene]

$100 challenge applies to you as well, Carbs.

[John B.]

That's taking the easy way out, isn't it?

[John B.]

You're completely full of shit. It is illegal
for a federal campaign official to meet with a foreign
national for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the
campaign unless the foreign national is registered under
FARA. That is a FACT. You can deny it until the cows come
home, but it will still be a FACT.

[John B.]

I have already "put up" and shown how you are wrong.

[Dene]

- hide quoted text -

Then there will be an indictment for that particular DJR meeting. Put your money where your mouth is.

[John B.]

Grow up, Greg.

[-hh]

Greg wrote:

-hh wrote:
> MNMikeW wrote:
>>> If no "dirt" exchanged hands, it was just a conversation
>>
>>The cite says "material discussions". So then you're claiming that a "conversation" isn't a discussion?
>>
>> What's already been disclosed is that they showed up at a meeting where the agenda was to
>> meet with known foreign nationals and with "dirt" as the topic. That is the relevant dailog: just like if one
>> tries to rob a bank but gets no cash, the delivery of actual material is not legally required.
>
>

> $100 says there is no indictment for a violation of this statute as pertains to the meeting in question.
> You, Bobby, and John should either put up or shut up.

I provisionally accept. My terms are that the offer must be made irrevocable and non-welcherable,
which means that the cash is to be held by a mutually acceptable independent party, that since you
made the dare, you deposit first, that all loose ends will be made unambiguous, otherwise chosen by
the 3rd party will serve as the final arbiter, as well as can invoke other terms & requirements (such
as the deadline to make the deposits, lest forfeit), and that the bet's proceeds will only go to the charity
(we will each designate one) selected by the winner. For the 3rd party, I nominate Alan (if he agrees)
to adjudicate, since you didn't mention him.

> Highly recommend you all utilize shut up option.

The ball is now in your court, Greg.

-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

Full of shit Greg. You're getting to be as stupid as Moderate. If you
would stop to think, which is something you did at one time, you would
realize that this was a lot more than a conversation.

[Dene]

Nomination rejected.
I would trust CNN. Anthony Weiner, or the Clintons before I would trust the lying RAT.

[B...@onramp.net]

I'm afraid that you've become so allied with trump you'd just forget
when you lost.

>
>Highly recommend you all utilize shut up option.

You can imagine what my recommendation for you is.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:31:25 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

>Another example of your homophobic rhetoric.

Someone who is as uneducated as you wouldn't know that what I wrote
isn't homophobic. What I had in mind was ass kissing. But what was
the first thing you thought? That shows where your mind is.
>
>Publicly the left adores the homosexual life style. Transgender is
> more friender.

There is no such word as friender (sic). Dumb ass.
>
>In reality they are BK.
>
>Serial liars.

[Dene]

Grow up, Greg.

All hat...no cattle.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

I'm afraid that you've become so allied with trump you'd just forget
when you lost.
>
>Highly recommend you all utilize shut up option.

You can imagine what my recommendation for you is.

All hat...no cattle.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:43:11 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>Dene <gds...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

>Oddly that is not what your cite said.
>
>Maybe you didn't read it.

Brilliant. You're so moronic that you don't even know to whom you're
replying. It was Greg's post and there was NO site mentioned.
Dumbo.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:46:05 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>
wrote:

>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 6:19:18 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>
>>> Allow me to pull a Bobby and bitch about all your left wing cites.
>>
>> That's taking the easy way out, isn't it?
>>
>

>Good point, stooping to BK's level is what happens to all of us if
> you read enough of his posts.

Simpleton. There's no level beneath you.

[-hh]

Translation: Ante raised ... and Greg folds.

> I would trust CNN. Anthony Weiner, or the Clintons before I would trust the lying RAT.

So what? Do you realistically think that you can have any of them provide
the service of 3rd Party arbiter?

FWIW, I'd be reasonably content also with Carbon or Bobby, but because you
extended this same dare to them, they're not eligible as disengaged 3rd parties.
Others are either blatant liars or anonymous trolls and thus disqualified.

Similarly, I could nominate a guy from <rec.scuba> who's a lawyer has previously
offered his services for free on <rec.scuba> to do this on a couple of occasions,
but since he's not an RSG participant, it isn't likely that he would agree to do the
same for free here, and AFAIC, you're who would have to pony up to cover all
such legal expenses if you can't nominate a reasonably trustworthy & mutually
acceptable volunteer. Thus, it can definitely be done if you'll pay the piper.

Greg, this is all quite doable ... if you weren't just trying to bluff and really want it to happen.


-hh

[B...@onramp.net]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 19:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:

>Grow up, Greg.
>
>All hat...no cattle.

Cute, but it would behoove you to know what that meant. It doesn't
fit at all here.

[B...@onramp.net]

See above.

[Dene]

-
Translation: Ante raised ... and Greg folds.

> I would trust CNN. Anthony Weiner, or the Clintons before I would trust the lying RAT.

So what? Do you realistically think that you can have any of them provide
the service of 3rd Party arbiter?

FWIW, I'd be reasonably content also with Carbon or Bobby, but because you
extended this same dare to them, they're not eligible as disengaged 3rd parties.
Others are either blatant liars or anonymous trolls and thus disqualified.

Similarly, I could nominate a guy from <rec.scuba> who's a lawyer has previously
offered his services for free on <rec.scuba> to do this on a couple of occasions,
but since he's not an RSG participant, it isn't likely that he would agree to do the
same for free here, and AFAIC, you're who would have to pony up to cover all
such legal expenses if you can't nominate a reasonably trustworthy & mutually
acceptable volunteer. Thus, it can definitely be done if you'll pay the piper.

Greg, this is all quite doable ... if you weren't just trying to bluff and really want it to happen.

It's really quite simple. The loser sends the winner an email addy. The winner responds with an address. Loser mails the check.

[Dene]

You prefer the term "chickenshit?" :-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 1:25 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT), Dene<gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes there is. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,
>>> it is illegal to foreign nationals to have material discussions
>>> with representatives of a federal campaign without registering
>>> as agent of a foreign government. Under federal election law, it is
>>> illegal for a campaign representative to arrange any sort of
>>> quid pro quo with a foreign national that is attempting to
>>> influence the outcome of an election.
>>>
>>> There is nothing here that prohibits a conversation.
>>> Nice try!
>>

>> Are you losing your mind? It was more than a conversation and anyone
>> with a smidgen of common sense knows it. Trump Jr. wanted to get dirt
>> on Hillary. Then he lied about the call when his crooked daddy
>> suggested that he said the meeting was about orphans.
>>
>> The Trumps are low-life gangsters and you take up for them. I shudder
>> to think why.
>
> If no "dirt" exchanged hands, it was just a conversation.

Ummmm.... ...no.

If you solicit sex from a prostitute, it's still against the law if you
don't get the sex.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 3:19 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net wrote:

>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law
>>
>>
>> https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in
>>
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
>>
>>
>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026
>>
>

> Allow me to pull a Bobby and bitch about all your left wing cites.

The BBC?

LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 3:54 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149
>>
>> http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law
>>
>> https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
>>
>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026
>>
>

> Looks like Donald Jr. Is in the clear.
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
>
>

'ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to
make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation,
in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an
electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3)
of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign
national.'

Donald Trump Jr. "solicited" a "thing of value".

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 4:34 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:54:04 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

> wrote:
>
>> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149
>>>
>>> http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law
>>>
>>> https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026
>>>
>>
>> Looks like Donald Jr. Is in the clear.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
>

> Bad link
>

No... ...the link is fine.

[Alan Baker]

Highly unlikely.

[Alan Baker]

I guarantee the coward will find a way to punk out.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 6:31 PM, Moderate wrote:
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

>> Greg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> $100 says there is no indictment for a violation of this statute as pertains to the meeting in question.
>>> You, Bobby, and John should either put up or shut up.
>>
>> I provisionally accept. My terms are that the offer must be made irrevocable and non-welcherable,
>> which means that the cash is to be held by a mutually acceptable independent party, that since you
>> made the dare, you deposit first, that all loose ends will be made unambiguous, otherwise chosen by
>> the 3rd party will serve as the final arbiter, as well as can invoke other terms & requirements (such
>> as the deadline to make the deposits, lest forfeit), and that the bet's proceeds will only go to the charity
>> (we will each designate one) selected by the winner. For the 3rd party, I nominate Alan (if he agrees)
>> to adjudicate, since you didn't mention him.
>>
>>
>>> Highly recommend you all utilize shut up option.
>>
>> The ball is now in your court, Greg.
>>
>> -hh
>>
>

> Fantastic. You picked the one person nobody trusts to hold the money.
>
> So sad that nobody can make a straight up bet and expect the bet
> to be honored. Having been welched on twice, wise move on your
> part.
>
> On the other hand I ran one nemesis off Usenet and the other into
> hiding.
>
> Money well spent.
>

I can get independent confirmation that I pay my wagers.

[Alan Baker]

Told you...

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-08-02 7:19 PM, Dene wrote:
> Grow up, Greg.
>
> All hat...no cattle.
>

All irony, all the time.

[Alan Baker]

He'll find a way to weasel out again...

[Alan Baker]

Punked out.

[Carbon]

On 08/02/2017 08:23 PM, Dene wrote:
> On 08/01/2017 10:18 PM, Dene wrote:
>>> I don't imagine this got any play in the far right media, but this is straight-up obstruction of justice by the orange fool himself.
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/cNBSBK
>>>
>>> Russia, Russia, Russia.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> $100 challenge applies to you as well, Carbs.

I'm sorry, what was this bet again?

[-hh]

No, that's totally inadequate because of the history of welching in RSG.

Both participants irrevocably commit upfront by placing their respective cash
deposits with a third party.

Anything short of that is chickenshit.

...and this is illustrated as soon as one side begins making excuses.


-hh

[-hh]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 12:23:03 AM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-08-02 6:31 PM, Moderate wrote:

> > -hh Wrote in message:

It is merely chickenshit excuse-making to weasel out of an offer that
was configured to not be able to welch on.

To that end, I'll offer a sidebar wager to Moderate:

If Greg un-chickenshits and Alan does become engaged as the 3rd Party holder,
but Alan then fails to promptly execute the winner's payment, I'll not only make
the $100 donation to whatever 503c charitable organization Greg originally had
designated, but also make an additional $100 to one that Moderate designates ...

... but just what is Moderate committing to putting up if he loses?

... and just what prevents Moderate from being a chickenshit welsher as well?

Let's hear the proposals.



-hh

[John B.]

It was that Donnie Jr. would not be indicted. One of the myriad
things that Greg doesn't understand is that the Justice Dept.
often chooses not to indict people who it thinks are guilty.
This is particularly true of rich people who have unlimited
resources to hire $1000/hour lawyers, and file motion after
motion in order to keep the case tied up in the courts for
years.

[MNMikeW]

John B. wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 6:19:18 PM UTC-4, MNMikeW wrote:

>> B...@Onramp.net wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149
>>>
>>> http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law
>>>
>>> https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026
>>

>> Allow me to pull a Bobby and bitch about all your left wing cites.
>

> That's taking the easy way out, isn't it?

Yes it is. Simply applying a page from the lefty playbook.

[MNMikeW]

B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 17:54:04 -0500 (CDT), Moderate<nos...@noemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>>> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40585149
>>>
>>> http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536711570/the-question-hanging-over-washington-did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law
>>>
>>> https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-11/did-donald-trump-jr-break-the-law-experts-weigh-in
>>>
>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/trump-jr-russia-email/533304/
>>>
>>> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/did-donald-trump-jr-break-any-laws-when-he-met-n782026
>>>
>>

>> Looks like Donald Jr. Is in the clear.
>>
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
>
> Bad link

No it isn't.

[B...@onramp.net]

Brilliant is more like it. There will probably be no indictments
because Trump has already stated that he'll use his pardoning power.
So why indict them. Trump Jr. will be shown to be guilty though.

[MNMikeW]

Moderate wrote:
> -hh<recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

> My worst nightmare, getting involved with HH and Baker.
> It is
> also a sucker's bet. There is no end to it.

Yes, imagine the contortions you would have to go through to collect
from these argumentative pricks.

-hh
http://gilligan.wikia.com/wiki/Harold_Hecuba

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 08:24:25 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>-hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> Wrote in message:

>My worst nightmare, getting involved with HH and Baker.

>It is also a sucker's bet. There is no end to it.

I agree with you on that. An indictment doesn't mean a thing. There
are so many things that could happen afterward that it may go no
further.

[B...@onramp.net]

I tried it five or six times. No connection.

[John B.]

If this is meant to describe me, it's a juvenile thing to say. "Smart"
would be more accurate. The Justice Dept. would not indict the
president's son even if it had the goods on him.

[-hh]

Sorry boys, but wrong: the terms are that the payment is
made upfront by sending it to the 3rd party.

With payments as a condition of commitment, it means that
the payment is out of the loser's hands before the outcome
is known --> the loser is denied the opportunity to welch.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

[Alan Baker]

And the solicitation of them.

[-hh]

The simplistic understanding of the rulebook is "no cash contributions",
but it actually broader than that. For example:

"The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition
on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the
United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20.
In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

•Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or
disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local
election in the United States;"

<https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/>

Note the 'or other thing of value', as this includes the less
tangible lane of data/information, as has been amplified in
FEC rulings:

"The FEC also recently determined that a foreign national
could act as a volunteer in creating intellectual property
for a PAC where the PAC would assume joint ownership of the
intellectual property, even though, as a general matter,
foreign nationals may not make in-kind political contributions."

<http://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-newsletters-item-5297.html>

FWIW, what this loophole is saying is that a FN can't hand over
information directly to a candidate; it may become permissible if
it has been laundered through a PAC, although do note:

"PACs, campaign committees, and political party committees should
review their compliance policies and procedures to ensure that
they are properly screening for foreign contributions and
preventing foreign nationals from having any operational,
managerial, or decisionmaking role."

Which also illustrates that this is just the do's & don'ts from
the FN's side - - there's also rules for US Citizens in terms of
what they are allowed to accept from a FN.


-hh

[Carbon]

Honestly I don't care what happens to little Donnie. It's his daddy that's in bed with the Russians.

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

Sorry boys, but wrong: the terms are that the payment is
made upfront by sending it to the 3rd party.

With payments as a condition of commitment, it means that
the payment is out of the loser's hands before the outcome
is known --> the loser is denied the opportunity to welch.

Save your blather for those who must endure your presence.
There is no 3rd party. No contribution to charity.
When you lose, you send the $100 directly to me.

In or out? Any other answer will be filed under HH BS and dutifully ignored.

[B...@onramp.net]

Anyone, including you Greg, is being foolish for making this bet. Even
Moderate and I agree that there are reasons why.
First, it will be tabled because Trump has said he's going to pardon
those charged. Then it could be hung up for a lifetime.

[Alan Baker]

Since one condition of getting a pardon is that you admit guilt for the
offence, I think the bet could easily be extended to cover that eventuality.

But let's note in passing that Greg has expanded his objection about
third parties holding the cash from his initial narrow objection to me,
to make ANY third party unacceptable.

So he has punked on a perfectly reasonable offer by HH, and now wants to
play role-reversal.

[B...@onramp.net]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 19:35:36 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nos...@noemail.com>

wrote:

>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:

>The bet was for indictment, not conviction.

I know but feel that if they can get an indictment there will be a
conviction.

[-hh]

Absolutely wrong Greg: you've already complained that this group's
members have a history of welching, so the terms which I proposed
eliminates that as a possibility.

You simply have no legitimate excuse with which to refuse.


-hh

[-hh]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:17:16 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2017-08-03 4:09 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:02:23 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> - show quoted text -
> >> Sorry boys, but wrong: the terms are that the payment is
> >> made upfront by sending it to the 3rd party.
> >>
> >> With payments as a condition of commitment, it means that
> >> the payment is out of the loser's hands before the outcome
> >> is known --> the loser is denied the opportunity to welch.
> >>
> >> Save your blather for those who must endure your presence.
> >> There is no 3rd party. No contribution to charity.
> >> When you lose, you send the $100 directly to me.
> >>
> >> In or out? Any other answer will be filed under HH BS and dutifully ignored.
> >
> > Anyone, including you Greg, is being foolish for making this bet. Even
> > Moderate and I agree that there are reasons why.
> > First, it will be tabled because Trump has said he's going to pardon
> > those charged. Then it could be hung up for a lifetime.
>
> Since one condition of getting a pardon is that you admit guilt for the
> offence, I think the bet could easily be extended to cover that eventuality.

When writing contracts, these sorts of things are precisely why you
hammer out the exact terms in advance.

> But let's note in passing that Greg has expanded his objection about
> third parties holding the cash from his initial narrow objection to me,
> to make ANY third party unacceptable.
>
> So he has punked on a perfectly reasonable offer by HH, and now wants to
> play role-reversal.

Greg has already shown everyone that he had no intention whatsoever of ever
entering into a real wager: he's shown he's too chickenshit to be in IRL hardball.

Greg also illustrated how craven he is by demanding any proceeds for only
himself, rather than to gregariously allow the bet to be a charity benefit.

FWIW, what's Greg's IRL full name & contact information? Offline preferred.
It is for the remote possibility that if I do somehow lose, I can send him a fruit basket.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

I'll email you...

[Dene]

- show quoted text -

Absolutely wrong Greg: you've already complained that this group's
members have a history of welching, so the terms which I proposed
eliminates that as a possibility.

Cite where I made this complaint.

[Dene]

The bet is an indictment pertaining to the Donnie meeting with the Russian lawyer. Basis is the statute John quoted. Pardon and or conviction is irrelevant.

[Dene]

FWIW, what's Greg's IRL full name & contact information? Offline preferred.
It is for the remote possibility that if I do somehow lose, I can send him a fruit basket.

No answer. Shocker.
See ya Hubert.

[Alan Baker]

Do you want me to post your IRL information here, Greg?