18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

They had concluded that prior to the election taking place, and yet Obama said this at the time:

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-unexpected-obama-trump-convergence-on-russia/553769/

Trump’s Misguided Comparison

Obama’s quote was about Trump’s unfounded claims about massive in-person voter fraud, such as noncitizens and “dead people” voting. At the time, Trump repeatedly warned that such voter fraud could tilt the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor. The potential influence of Russian meddling in the election is a different sort altogether.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-misguided-comparison/

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Trump’s Misguided Comparison

Obama’s quote was about Trump’s unfounded claims about massive in-person voter fraud, such as noncitizens and “dead people” voting. At the time, Trump repeatedly warned that such voter fraud could tilt the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor. The potential influence of Russian meddling in the election is a different sort altogether.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/trumps-misguided-comparison/

 

That IS what Trump's quote is about but that doesn't take away from the fact that Obama knew about the Russian meddling at the time he made that all encompassing, comprehensive statement and also dismissed it as having any possible affect on the election. Obama had access to more intelligence on the subject than anyone.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/top-democrat-says-obama-shares-responsibility-russia-s-meddling-n848661

Edited April 21, 20188 yr by lannarebirth

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

That IS what Trump's quote is about but that doesn't take away from the fact that Obama knew about the Russian meddling at the time he made that all encompassing, comprehensive statement and also dismissed it as having any possible affect on the election. Obama had access to more intelligence on the subject than anyone.

You are now ignoring the fact that Obama was specifically referring to Trump's claim of massive in-person voter that. That was the issue he was addressing. That was the whole point of the factcheck article's debunking of Trump's claims. Take it up with factcheck.org.

 
That IS what Trump's quote is about but that doesn't take away from the fact that Obama knew about the Russian meddling at the time he made that all encompassing, comprehensive statement and also dismissed it as having any possible affect on the election. Obama had access to more intelligence on the subject than anyone.

Why do you call the statement “all-encompassing” and “comprehensive”? Whether or not he knew about Russian tampering attempts, Obama was clearly responding only to Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

I seriously doubt this lawsuit is a good idea for the democrats, but I also think it's probably a news story that will fizzle out in a few days. The real hard core stuff, Mueller and New York, continues, as well they should. 

48 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Why do you call the statement “all-encompassing” and “comprehensive”? Whether or not he knew about Russian tampering attempts, Obama was clearly responding only to Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

 

 

I think the quote speaks for itself. If it ever goes to trial, which I doubt Obama can explain it himself.

 

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I seriously doubt this lawsuit is a good idea for the democrats, but I also think it's probably a news story that will fizzle out in a few days. The real hard core stuff, Mueller and New York, continues, as well they should. 

 

It's something to talk about on the Sunday news programs and maybe drive fundraising or voter registration efforts. Let Mueller do his job. They're putting the cart before the horse and in doing so it just looks like politicking. If the Democrats were clean in all this it might be a shrewd move, I don't know, but it's just going to drag up a whole bunch of stuff about the collusion (albeit apparently legal) in their own primary elections.

Edited April 21, 20188 yr by lannarebirth

Democrats...aka losers! Are there no depths they will stoop to?

 

 

An old Chinese proverb says...................

 

When you set out on a mission of revenge, buy TWO coffins before you leave.

 

 

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Democrats...aka losers! Are there no depths they will stoop to?

 

 

The law suite is based upon timing dictated by Statute of Limitations. Should Muller uncover unlawful activities & if the Dems gain sufficient control in the 2018 midterm elections then the action may go-ahead though I understand the action is basically political messaging and will not be acted upon.

 

Trump indulges practically every day in insulting libel / defamation against all manner of groups / people from which he is protected against legal action. Trump repeatedly abuses his power. Accordingly Trump is unfit to be President of the USA.

Edited April 22, 20188 yr by simple1

8 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Democrats...aka losers! Are there no depths they will stoop to?

 

Filing a single lawsuit is stooping?  Because if you think that, I know somebody who has filed more than two thousand of them.

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

Filing a single lawsuit is stooping?  Because if you think that, I know somebody who has filed more than two thousand of them.

Yeah, great point. His trick I think is incredibly low expectations. Everyone knows he's a totally corrupt sleazeball con man so it doesn't hurt him at all with his white nationalist base to continue to be what he already is. 

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Filing a single lawsuit is stooping?  Because if you think that, I know somebody who has filed more than two thousand of them.

 

I think you're missing the point........filing a lawsuit without ANY evidence seems to be stooping very low.   If there was anything of note, Mueller would have turned it up by now, and there is NO evidence of Trump being involved with the Russians, NONE.  Others perhaps,  but not Trump.   

 

Waste of my keyboard time though, as I allocate only 15 mintues a day for forums, several of them, a total of 15 minutes.

9 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

I think you're missing the point........filing a lawsuit without ANY evidence seems to be stooping very low.   If there was anything of note, Mueller would have turned it up by now, and there is NO evidence of Trump being involved with the Russians, NONE.  Others perhaps,  but not Trump.   

 

Waste of my keyboard time though, as I allocate only 15 mintues a day for forums, several of them, a total of 15 minutes.

You're simply ignoring the evidence already present: CIA, FBI etc. reported the Russians trying to influence the elections, and Team Trump trying to get information from Russians on HRC.

5 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

filing a lawsuit without ANY evidence seems to be stooping very low.

 

How do you know they have no evidence?

 

5 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

If there was anything of note, Mueller would have turned it up by now

 

How do you know he hasn't "turned it up"?  We haven't seen his findings yet.

 

5 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

and there is NO evidence of Trump being involved with the Russians, NONE.  Others perhaps,  but not Trump. 

 

You were already corrected on this point just yesterday:

 

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, great point. His trick I think is incredibly low expectations. Everyone knows he's a totally corrupt sleazeball con man so it doesn't hurt him at all with his white nationalist base to continue to be what he already is. 

Indeed. Trump is synonymous with lie; there's a saying "many people have said" circulating now that's telling. It's "Don't Trump to me." :-) 

On 4/22/2018 at 1:00 AM, Jingthing said:

I seriously doubt this lawsuit is a good idea for the democrats, but I also think it's probably a news story that will fizzle out in a few days. The real hard core stuff, Mueller and New York, continues, as well they should. 

That last school shooting in America caught some serious traction - and now we've moved on . . . again.

On 4/22/2018 at 11:39 AM, attrayant said:

 

Filing a single lawsuit is stooping?  Because if you think that, I know somebody who has filed more than two thousand of them.

Yes, and some awful "funny" ones as well! 

Quote

 

Trump calls the Russia lawsuit ‘funny.’ He once sued to prove he wasn’t an orangutan.

  We’re no longer a nation of laws, as John Adams said. We’re a nation of lawsuits.

“So funny,” President Trump remarked of the Democratic National Committee’s lawsuit against the Trump campaign, the Russian government and WikiLeaks.

Hilarious.

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-Trump-calls-the-Russia-lawsuit-‘funny-’-He-once-sued-to-prove-he-wasn’t-an-orangutan-.HJQAte3hz.html

Edited April 24, 20188 yr by Jingthing

On 4/20/2018 at 9:04 PM, maximillian said:

 

Dems or Reps, none of them is fit to run a country like the USA.

Not a fan of Donald at all but Hillary would have been the worst choice. IMHO.

 

I think the suit that is the topic of this thread was filed in order to take attention off this suit that was also filed last week:

 

https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-anatomy-of-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/

 

 

The lawsuit is based on the Russians hacking the DNC's email for the  illegal and non democratic way of fixing the nomination for Hillary is it not?

Its seems a bit funny to suit somebody because you are doing something illegally, got caught, and it caused you pain.

Edited April 25, 20188 yr by dcutman

1 minute ago, dcutman said:

The lawsuit is based on the Russians hacking the DNC's email for the  illegal and non democratic way of fixing the nomination for Hillary is it not?

Its seems a bit funny to suit somebody because you are doing something illegally, and it caused you pain.

 

I think they're setting up a defense for the campaign finance violations. Something along the lines of "you wouldn't know we were laundering money and exceeding campaign donation limits if the Russians hadn't of hacked our computers and released our internal records and communications."

7 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Its seems a bit funny to suit somebody because you are doing something illegally, got caught, and it caused you pain.

 

Can you clarify - what was being done illegally?

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Can you clarify - what was being done illegally?

Did not the DNC rig the nomination for Hillary? Pretty sure thats illegal in our democratic process If it is not it should be and the Russians hacking and posting a few facebook ads should pale in that election rigging.

17 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think they're setting up a defense for the campaign finance violations. Something along the lines of "you wouldn't know we were laundering money and exceeding campaign donation limits if the Russians hadn't of hacked our computers and released our internal records and communications."

Could very well be. Thats how jacked up the democrats are and their thought process.

4 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Could very well be. Thats how jacked up the democrats are and their thought process.

 

Politicians and their operatives are all pretty slimy. It does highlight how awful the press has become that they are not all over this story which has been known for 2 years.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

11 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Did not the DNC rig the nomination for Hillary? Pretty sure thats illegal in our democratic process If it is not it should be and the Russians hacking and posting a few facebook ads should pale in that election rigging.

 

It is my understanding that, in most states, the primary vote serves an advisory role to the state delegates.  The DNC and RNC usually/often respect the will of the primary voters, but (just like in the general election) are under no legal obligation to do so.

 

If some law were actually broken by whatever the DNC did, it seems to be that there are more than enough aggrieved Bernie voters who have legal standing to file a complaint.  Why have none done so?

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

It is my understanding that, in most states, the primary vote serves an advisory role to the state delegates.  The DNC and RNC usually/often respect the will of the primary voters, but (just like in the general election) are under no legal obligation to do so.

 

If some law were actually broken by whatever the DNC did, it seems to be that there are more than enough aggrieved Bernie voters who have legal standing to file a complaint.  Why have none done so?

 

Primaries are operated based on the internal rules of the political organization. In the Democrats case the rules were written to favor the Clinton, big money candidate, and superdelegates were chosen accordingly.  Nothing illegal about that, though obviously it's not very democratic.

 

As with all things where power becomes concentrated, there are other matters that the DNC and Clinton campaign may be guilty of with respect to campaign finance law illegalities.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/no-remorse-for-hillary/

 

 

 

Quote

Democrats may regret opening this Pandora's Box

 

Litigation compels both sides to reveal information, so it won't just be the Republicans that have to disclose internal documents. It would be surprising if defendants in this case didn't make highly comprehensive and intrusive document requests of the DNC. Some of these requests could result in newly embarrassing information and, at the very least, will refocus public attention on controversial internal disputes within the DNC, such as disparagement of the Bernie Sanders campaign.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/dnc-lawsuit-watergate-opinion-wu/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Top+Stories)

Edited April 27, 20188 yr by lannarebirth