Coordination between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia to win a US Presidential election would be a crime
really... law professor... why don't you document the criminal codes which say that. In America crimes need to be delineated before hand otherwise they are bills of attainder. if his team were asking for crimes to be committed going forward... they should go to jail if the crimes were then committed. but... if say the hacking already happened.... I don't know how asking for the release of the emails which showed hillarys crimes would be criminal. Many leftist publications have already discussed this because Trump did call for the release of the emails. But... none pointed to any code which said that was a felony. What they were all careful to say was calling for more hacking might be a crime. coordination in and of itself is not a crime. coordinating crimes would be criminal. what crimes do you know about? oh that is right... they have all said none are known.
Patience my friend.If The FBI think they can get more evidence and build a stronger case let them do so.
One thing is very curious to me. John King is the one obvious imbecile working for CNN. Blitzer is just working on brain stem only, but King is the real deal.That came out in one of the Obama debates, I think it was; years back. it wasn't until then I realized that "this guy is an imbecile." So jem, you and King have something in common.
you have turned into the pretensious leftist dick I always knew you were. you hid it well for a few years... because you write well... but it still surfaces. you think you are smarter than everyone else who lives near you. you can't stand it when you leftist facts are challenged. the only time you play it straight is when science is involved because I guess you feel you still have your integrity to care about in that arena. by the way...you post made no sense... is king the real deal or did you realize at the debate he was not... make up your mind. you are right about blitzer.. just a leftist stem paid for by the left. sort of like you... he is paid talking head... you are paid for keyboard.
You may be getting sucked into the the jem vortex. There is no exit. Correction: The only way to exit is to stop responding.
That is the point... you said that Trump is under criminal investigation... yet you have no facts to back that up. While I phrased my statements as a question. I suspect when this is over... you are going to see plenty of Americans have been unmasked and the information disseminated by Susan Rice an others in the administration. The only question... is will it touch Obama. While I agree it is speculative they will get Obama for any of this.... highly speculative... there is a chance they could get Rhodes or Rice to roll. So I put that chances to be a lot bigger than an gnats hair... but far less that 50/50. remember John King said welcome to the witness list. the question now is if Obama knew and if she rolls. I think that depends on the amount of prison time she may be facing. Finally, let me note you all we saying it was crazy to think Donald Trump could be president. You made those comments because you were leftists not because you really understood what a proper poll sample is. So... with respect to this subject. If Sessions wants to go after this... he will get the roll from Rice or Rhode or whoever in the deep state. With the Feds its roll or face a long time in prison.
When ask if Rice committed a crime Rand Paul says yeah and by the way The administration was spying on Senators talking with Netanyahu. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017...tted-a-crime-did-something-thats-devastating/ During an interview on Thursday’s “Kilmeade & Friends” on Fox News Radio, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) responded to a question on whether he thought Susan Rice committed a crime by stating, “Yeah. I think she did something that’s devastating, and that is to take top secret information without a warrant for looking at an American individual, and exposed that individual, and then perhaps be associated with people who may have leaked this information.” Rand said that Rice “did something terribly damaging to the country because we can’t allow — you know, the intelligence community loses a lot of credibility when we find out it’s being politicized. And so, there are dangers really to having political people use top secret information for political purposes. And I think the more we learn about Susan Rice, the more we’re going to learn that she’s been involved, I think, in a lot of shenanigans with using intelligence at the White House for political purposes.” When asked if he thought Rice “committed a crime?” He answered, “Yeah. I think she did something that’s devastating, and that is to take top secret information without a warrant for looking at an American individual, and exposed that individual, and then perhaps be associated with people who may have leaked this information.” He continued, “But you can’t have the executive branch of government listening in on conversations. Think about it, if a US senator is talking to the ambassador to Jordan or to Israel, should the executive branch, the president, be allowed to listen to private conversations between Senators and heads of state? This is what happened. There were senators and congressmen talking to Netanyahu about a year or so ago, and the White House was listening in on these too. This is a real problem. This is why we need overall reform in how much data is gathered, and I think to unmask an American is something we should obey the Constitution with. Now we have a lower standard for eavesdropping on foreigners, but for eavesdropping on legislators, one, that shouldn’t happen, because there should be a separation of powers and protection of each branch of government’s powers. But two, if you want to look at an American or listen to an American’s phone call, they should go through a regular court and ask a regular judge to listen to it. Having political people, who have been known to be partisans, and very, very biased like Susan Rice, you can’t let those — those people shouldn’t have the ability to look at American’s phone calls.” Rand added that “The FISA court is a secret court. So, one of the problems with a secret court is, you don’t get a lawyer on your side. There’s only a lawyer on one side. It’s a one-sided court, which is a problem. The other problem is that it’s in secret. Now you could say, well we’ll accept a lower standard for spying on foreigners, and even the privacy advocate that I am, I can accept a somewhat of a lower standard for foreigners, but when they’re talking to Americans, to listen to the Americans or to unmask the Americans I think you ought to go to a regular court and have a regular court order or warrant.”