EXCLUSIVE: Trump says he would take information again if foreigners offered dirt on opponents

Oh, so Trump himself gets to be the arbiter of whether or not “there is something wrong”?

Do you not see the logical inconsistency there?

1 Like

Because he’s stupid.

1 Like

If it’s good for Trump there’s nothing wrong with the information. Very reliable!

No. Any individual makes his own determination of whether to report something to the authorities.
Why report a nothing?

Sure, Trump Junior should have alerted Comey, Brennan, McCabe, and Clapper to the fact that the Russian woman they sent to make the claim that she had Russian dirt on Clinton was claiming she had Russian dirt on Clinton. And then what would those agency heads have done?

And I don’t get that. Where else does ignorance excuse you? It should be here least of all.

Me either…but Mueller should have at least charged Manafort with conspiracy. He knew better.

I would have fined jr…
Charged Manafort
Kush seemed to know this was wrong…if so let him go.

You didn’t answer my question.

What is it you object to???

Are Americans now RESTRICTED in what information they can hear? Is the 1st Amendment no longer in force?

WHY was it PERFECTLY FINE for the Clinton campaign to get information from a foreign government source - the Ukrainian government - and use it?

Why was it PERFECTLY FINE for the Clinton campaign to BUY information from foreign government sources and use it in the campaign???.
.
.

ANSWER PLEASE - Don’t hide behind platitudes and statements about what GOPers will say. ANSWER PLEASE.

M

When did the first amendment become about “hearing” something?

Handed it to the FBI to investigate. It’s what the FBI does.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment. And, of course, drag in the Clintons. The goper argument looks weaker and weaker every time this happens.

Here goes. Again.

As has been pointed out in this thread more than once, IT’S ILLEGAL! AGAINST THE LAW!

Here, once again, is the statement by the chairman of the Federal Election Commission. There is no wiggle room.

As an American, I can get information legally obtained from ANY SOURCE, and that includes foreign newspapers and foreign governments.

No you can not. The statement makes that perfectly clear.

The proof of that is that when the Clinton campaign got information about Paul Manafort from the Ukraine government during the campaign, and they used it against him and got him FIRED from the Trump campaign, NO ONE from the government came knocking on her door and arresting her for getting information from a foreign government source.

It was PERFECTLY FINE by our government and by me. Was it not fine by you, and if not, why were you not all over her for it???

Prove it.

The President was right. Opposition research on your opponent, legally obtained and legally provided is FINE ALWAYS - no matter the source.

He is very very wrong. The statement below proves it.

Yes, it’s odd and tiresome too.

The current head of the FEC is a DEM and an idiot, too. She is mis-reading the law and the Constitution.

You CANNOT write a law that takes away my 1st Amendment rights. Information is NEVER to be restricted from me as an American by law, including any campaign laws.

You can write a law that says YOU cannot reveal information. We have LOTS of those. But once YOU reveal it, anyway, I am entitled to see it and you cannot stop that with a law, as that would violate the 1st Amendment.

It is my Constitutional right to see revealed information and the FEC CANNOT write a law that takes it away or restricts it.

Ask Edward Snowden. He broke a law that says he cannot reveal information, but the New York Times was PERFECTLY within their rights to publish what he revealed and I was PERFECTLY within my rights to see what they printed and neither I nor the Times went to jail, even though Edward Snowden did…

WHY NOT???

M

No.

He was perfectly clear.

The left just said he said something he did NOT say, which is all too typical.

M

He was!

He was being ironic, as in, since Clinton DESTROYED subpoenaed evidence, the only way we will ever get to see that evidence is if the Russians had hacked her years before she committed that act of obstruction of justice.

M

So that’s your excuse? The FEC chairman is a DEM? If she is, she’s sure smart. Like all Dems.

It may interest you to know that the Founding Fathers had concerns about foreign influence. The first law on the subject was passed in … get ready … 1789.

It is my Constitutional right to see revealed information and the FEC CANNOT write a law that takes it away or restricts it.

Ask Edward Snowden. He broke a law that says he cannot reveal information, but the New York Times was PERFECTLY within their rights to publish what he revealed and I was PERFECTLY within my rights to see what they printed and neither I nor the Times went to jail, even though Edward Snowden did…

WHY NOT???

M
[/quote]

I don’t care what Snowden says. He’s not making up the laws.

No, he was stupid. As always.

List them. I already did. You need to learn too. Why Steele?

#factsmatter

Now there’s an argument!