Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[indiucky]

Totally. She could serve me wodka, as she squeezed me to death with her legs. I'd die happy.

Thank goodness you weren't a spy in the cold war...

"I think we can get this American spy to talk.."

"What do we need?"

"A bottle of vodka and some Ukrainian female gymnasts..."

"Really?"

"Yes...He said it would be "Hammer Time", Whatever that means..."

 

[T.Lex]

First, not information.

Read the footnote. There's a laundry list of stuff, including the pin cite to "information."

Second, not a court, but a politically appointed FEC comission.

The cite in the footnote is to US v. Sheker.
618 F2d 607 United States v. Sheker | OpenJurist

Information can be a thing of value. Whaley v. U. S., 324 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1963).

Third, they found against. With good reason... "coercing" police, uniformed military, etc. to stand behind the president would then be far worse violations of state/federal laws prohibiting such entities from making campaign contributions. So, yeah, it's wrong, but not illegal.

And I'd say none... because, if fully adjudicated, it would be found to 1) not be in the law, and 2) even if it were, to be a unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech and association.

The Romney thing, yes. The Trump thing, assuming the foreign national actually had important information, that's much trickier.

More restrictive laws govern what a foreign national may not do, but it doesn't change the meaning of a "thing of value".

Indeed.

Could be, but I don't buy it. Unless something new comes up, I think she really wanted face time to talk about the adoption ban and sanctions, and used the "dirt" as a ruse to get that face time.

And, Don, Jr's naivete not to "know a guy who knows a guy" to take the meeting at double-arm's length, the way all "seasoned politicians" do it. Lol! Yes, they sure as hell take the meeting... but not themselves!

Consensus, it is here.

 

[Dddrees]

First, not information. Second, not a court, but a politically appointed FEC comission. Third, they found against. With good reason... "coercing" police, uniformed military, etc. to stand behind the president would then be far worse violations of state/federal laws prohibiting such entities from making campaign contributions. So, yeah, it's wrong, but not illegal.

And I'd say none... because, if fully adjudicated, it would be found to 1) not be in the law, and 2) even if it were, to be a unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech and association.



More restrictive laws govern what a foreign national may not do, but it doesn't change the meaning of a "thing of value".

Could be, but I don't buy it. Unless something new comes up, I think she really wanted face time to talk about the adoption ban and sanctions, and used the "dirt" as a ruse to get that face time.

And, Don, Jr's naivete not to "know a guy who knows a guy" to take the meeting at double-arm's length, the way all "seasoned politicians" do it. Lol! Yes, they sure as hell take the meeting... but not themselves!

Wait, supposedly it wasn't just Donny boy, supposedly it was Donny Boy, Jared, and Manafort. Please tell me if that meeting actually included those three that Trump himself wasn't aware of it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wait, supposedly it wasn't just Donny boy, supposedly it was Donny Boy, Jared, and Manaford. Please tell me if that meeting actually included those three that Trump himself wasn't aware of it?

He says he wasn't aware of it until the story broke. Nevermind that 3 weeks prior to the story breaking, Jr and Trump's lawyers were aware that some of the exchange had been picked up by the media. If I were a betting man, I'd say the president, amazingly, is lying. At the very least "Jim" would've told him.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait, supposedly it wasn't just Donny boy, supposedly it was Donny Boy, Jared, and Manaford. Please tell me if that meeting actually included those three that Trump himself wasn't aware of it?

This is more smoke.

What if he lied about not knowing about the meeting? On the scale of political lies, that's about as innocuous as it gets. It wasn't under oath and can easily be backed away from saying that he can't remember whether he knew or not.

 

[Dddrees]

He says he wasn't aware of it until the story broke. Nevermind that 3 weeks prior to the story breaking, Jr and Trump's lawyers were aware that some of the exchange had been picked up by the media. If I were a betting man, I'd say the president, amazingly, is lying. At the very least "Jim" would've told him.

No, you mean Trump's lying?

Oh my, lions and tigers and bears. Oh my!!

 

[Dddrees]

This is more smoke.

What if he lied about not knowing about the meeting? On the scale of political lies, that's about as innocuous as it gets. It wasn't under oath and can easily be backed away from saying that he can't remember whether he knew or not.

Face it, Trump tells more lies. I mean Trump lies. No, what I meant to say is Trump almost always lies. Just trying to figure out when he doesn't lie????

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is more smoke.

What if he lied about not knowing about the meeting? On the scale of political lies, that's about as innocuous as it gets. It wasn't under oath and can easily be backed away from saying that he can't remember whether he knew or not.

It just seems like they lie way too much. And really, for no reason. His supporters have repeatedly shown they don't care. So why lie?

 

[Dddrees]

It just seems like they lie way too much. And really, for no reason. His supporters have repeatedly shown they don't care. So why lie?

News coming out now suggest there was another key Russian player in the meeting as well. Stay tuned, Trump and his supporters have more excuses to come up with.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

.

 

[T.Lex]

Face it, Trump tells more lies. I mean Trump lies. No, what I meant to say is Trump almost always lies. Just trying to figure out when he doesn't lie????

It just seems like they lie way too much. And really, for no reason. His supporters have repeatedly shown they don't care. So why lie?

Trump is, and has been since the 1980s, a shameful [strike]self-promoter[/strike] liar.

This is nothing new.

Here on INGO, people got tired of me pointing it out.

Why does he lie? Because he's a liar. Its pretty much as simple as that. Small things, big things, doesn't matter.

Lying about this meeting is probably one of the smallest lies he's told this week.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Read the footnote. There's a laundry list of stuff, including the pin cite to "information."


The cite in the footnote is to US v. Sheker.
618 F2d 607 United States v. Sheker | OpenJurist

Oh, jeez! The Ninth! Ok, in this case, they got it right because the statute they refer to includes impersonating an FBI/IRS agent to coerce OTHER TYPES of "information", documents and papers, so they extended it to "verbal" information. Though they didn't reason it that way, they did get it right. Here is the law in question, so coercing verbal "information" follows closely to paper or document "information".

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Also, in the cite, they deem the information as a "thing of value" because the repo man impersonating an FBI agent WAS PAID for getting the information. I.e. when you are paying for the information, it has value. No mention of money or intent of paying for the information in the Don, Jr. case (though interestingly enough, the pee memo was paid for!!!).

The Romney thing, yes. The Trump thing, assuming the foreign national actually had important information, that's much trickier.


Indeed.


Consensus, it is here.

Yes, something a seasoned politico would never do... not directly him or herself or inner circle or remotely traceable... But nearly all would ensure the information was got!

 

[Dddrees]

Trump is, and has been since the 1980s, a shameful [strike]self-promoter[/strike] liar.

This is nothing new.

Here on INGO, people got tired of me pointing it out.

Why does he lie? Because he's a liar. Its pretty much as simple as that. Small things, big things, doesn't matter.

Lying about this meeting is probably one of the smallest lies he's told this week.

Yeah, kind of normal isn't it.

Man, I know others have lied before, but this this this this. I mean what do you call him anyway. Habitual liar is just somehow too kind.

Wow, it just seems the level of acceptance of this kind of crap is unreal.

 

[T.Lex]

It is not. "Or other thing of value" can, in other contexts, include information. Or sex.

A "thing of value" and "anything of value" appear literally hundreds of times throughout the federal code (i.e. US law), so it is not a new question. Prior to OhMyGodButButTrump!, information was not considered "anything of value".

Oh, jeez! The Ninth! Ok, in this case, they got it right ...

So, you're conceding that my initial statement was correct and yours was not?

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, kind of normal isn't it.

Man, I know others have lied before, but this this this this. I mean what do you call him anyway. Habitual liar is just somehow too kind.

Wow, it just seems the level of acceptance of this kind of crap is unreal.

The collective "we" has no choice. He was duly elected. He is president. We have to accept that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The collective "we" has no choice. He was duly elected. He is president. We have to accept that.

I've accepted it. I call Trump "president." I have yet to refer to him in any way comparable to the creative monikers many (here) had for the last president. Any criticism I assign, is backed up specific action.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So, you're conceding that my initial statement was correct and yours was not?

I would concede that in the 9th cases, they got it right because:

1) an element of the crime included information in other forms, i.e. "documents and papers", and
2) even with that, they pegged the value of the information upon the amount of money paid for getting that information

Given that those caveats were necessary, a "thing of value" does NOT intrinsically include information. When combined with crime elements that include other forms of "information" like documents and papers, and payment for that information, then it is [STRIKE]or at least can be[/STRIKE].

So, we're both right.

ETA: Struck the dissembling at the end

 

[T.Lex]

I would concede that in the 9th cases, they got it right because:

1) an element of the crime included information in other forms, i.e. "documents and papers", and
2) even with that, they pegged the value of the information upon the amount of money paid for getting that information

Given that those caveats were necessary, a "thing of value" does NOT intrinsically include information. When combined with crime elements that include other forms of "information" like documents and papers, and payment for that information, then it is or at least can be.

So, we're both right.

Yeah, but I specifically mentioned "other contexts" which makes me rightier than you. So, in INGO terms, you're my b... bestie.

 

[Dddrees]

I've accepted it. I call Trump "president." I have yet to refer to him in any way comparable to the creative monikers many (here) had for the last president. Any criticism I assign, is backed up specific action.

Sorry, but even my lowest level for acceptance doesn't allow for habitual liars.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yeah, but I specifically mentioned "other contexts" which makes me rightier than you. So, in INGO terms, you're my b... bestie.