Jump to content

"interacting" poll


meddling poll  

  1. 1. Who thinks members of the trump admin

    • thought they were meddling with russian operatives but the legal definition of collusion was not crossed
      0
    • thought they were meddling with russians to get hillary dirt but got nothing about it
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Platinum Contributing Member
29 minutes ago, oleroule said:

what's the legal definition of collusion?

also, what's the statute that makes it criminal?

Coach Toolkit told me it’s a generic and catchall term but definitely not fluid. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gee, here i thought alot of people in here knew there was "interaction" with russians about helping trump, bit it just didn't meet the definition of collusion. so it's skidmark, tom, snake, and steve from the rww side. did i miss anyone else?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
8 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

you already gave your answer

"adoption:

:lol:

 

No I didn't.   

Just reporting what Jr. told congress.   If he lied why wasn't he charged?

Just type adoption in the search portion and see for yourself.  

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4464062-Donald-Trump-Jr-Senate-Judiciary-Committee.html

Page 16.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Whatever happened, it didn't meet the legal standard, and that's all that matters.  You can't arrest someone for going 55mph when the speed limit is 55mph, just like you can't arrest someone for collusion if they aren't colluding under the standard of the  law.

Not that hard to figure out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

Whatever happened, it didn't meet the legal standard, and that's all that matters.  You can't arrest someone for going 55mph when the speed limit is 55mph, just like you can't arrest someone for collusion if they aren't colluding under the standard of the  law.

Not that hard to figure out. 

that is true and i am not arguing that, nor is it the intent of this poll.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 hour ago, Snoslinger said:

cowards, every damn one of ya...

Why would anyone vote for some made up scenarios fabricated by your completely wacked out thought processes from butt hurt island..:lol:

Edited by Rigid1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rigid1 said:

Why would anyone vote for some made up scenarios fabricated by your completely wacked out thought processes from butt hurt island..:lol:

well earlier today some members made those statements, which i had trouble believing tbh. so one told me to start a poll to prove things, so i did. :dunno:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
55 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

Whatever happened, it didn't meet the legal standard, and that's all that matters.  You can't arrest someone for going 55mph when the speed limit is 55mph, just like you can't arrest someone for collusion if they aren't colluding under the standard of the  law.

Not that hard to figure out. 

Actually LEO can give someone a ticket for going 55 in a 55 zone.   Speed limits are guides for normal driving conditions.   Its officers judgement if the conditions are less than ideal they can write you up for doing 40 in a 55.   

What you are saying is probably true on the obstruction charge.   The collusion was proven not to be true.   NO EVIDENCE doesn't mean NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.  Mueller said NO EVIDENCE.  

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Actually LEO can give someone a ticket for going 55 in a 55 zone.   Speed limits are guides for normal driving conditions.   Its officers judgement if the conditions are less than ideal they can write you up for doing 40 in a 55.   

What you are saying is probably true on the obstruction charge.   The collusion was proven not to be true.   NO EVIDENCE doesn't mean NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE.  Mueller said NO EVIDENCE.  

Technically yes, and I should have stated under normal circumstances, was just trying to keep it simple.

And yes there was no evidence of collusion in the legal sense and that is all that matters.

What it doesn't mean is that there was no contact between the campaign and Russians, but the contact was legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1jkw said:

 

Whatever happened, it didn't meet the legal standard, and that's all that matters.  You can't arrest someone for going 55mph when the speed limit is 55mph, just like you can't arrest someone for collusion if they aren't colluding under the standard of the  law.

Not that hard to figure out. 

I can prove that your mouth colludes with trucker's cocks in the Pennsylvania rest areas. 

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...