As far as I'm aware, not even the most rabid anti-Trump Democratic (i.e.you) claims that the Russian lady lawyer made any "contribution or donation of money" in her Trump Tower visit, and likewise in the infamous DNC email revelations.

What kind of pro-Trump goober (you) would make the ridiculous mistake that money would have had to have changed hands at the "Trump Tower visit" as opposed to any other time in order for the MAGAts to have committed crimes, and how far up your ass does your head have to be to NOT know that the "Russian lady" (your term) is already on record claiming that Junior asked her for proof of her claims and spoke about lifting sanctions with her. Do you not understand what solicitation means?

http://fortune.com/2017/11/06/trump-jr-russia-lawyer-deal-clinton/

Therefor evidently where you and I differ on this is whether the phrase "thing of value" covers 'advice' and/or 'information' type help.

Evidently you're limiting the Trump campaign's involvement to the one meeting with "the Russkies" and not factoring in the other 100+ meetings/contacts that members of the Trump campaign had with Russians... probably because it's well established that you don't mind one whit appearing stupid.

Then it'll be my time to wallow in the schadenfreude as I remind you that I told you from day one that getting dirt on your political opponent is NOT illegal, even if it comes from those evil Russkies.

So to recap: I've shown you the law multiple times wherein it is illegal for a campaign to solicit, accept, or receive the help of foreign nationals, and apparently you aren't capable of grasping this fact and continue to spew your ridiculous nonsense that Americans have a First Amendment right to do so.

You're contending/betting that it does, and I'm contending/betting that it doesn't. If your argument doesn't fail at the 'common sense' level, it will certainly fail at the first amendment level.

It's fairly damn "common sense" and has been well-settled law for centuries that our First Amendment rights are limited. For instance it's illegal for an American citizen to yell "fire" in a crowded venue unless something is in flames. I've shown you the law where it is illegal to do what you keep insisting is legal, and no matter how many times you repeat it, you're still wrong... it's still illegal.

Your feeling that a law is unconstitutional also doesn't make it legal, and if you believe the Supreme Court would actually make a ruling that would allow foreign governments to turn the First Amendment into a tool to kill American democracy, then you and I see things very differently indeed.

But hang in there, keep on dumbmenting yourself and don't give up hope until you at last hear that dull thud of the Mueller probe 'explosion'.

Wrong again. I couldn't care less what the "Mueller probe" does or does not contain, as I believe the indictments -- sealed as well as heretofore unsealed and in multiple jurisdictions -- that have already caused multiple of the Trump MAGAts to plead guilty to their crimes and either flip or go to prison for said illegal acts are working quite nicely. :)

As far as I'm aware, not even the most rabid anti-Trump Democratic (i.e.you) claims that the Russian lady lawyer
made any "contribution or donation of money" in her Trump Tower visit, and likewise in the infamous DNC email revelations.

Therefor evidently where you and I differ on this is whether the phrase "thing of value" covers 'advice' and/or 'information' type help.

You're contending/betting that it does, and I'm contending/betting that it doesn't. If your argument doesn't fail at the 'common sense' level, it will certainly fail at the first amendment level.

But hang in there, keep on dumbmenting yourself and don't give up hope until you at last hear that dull thud of the Mueller probe 'explosion'.

Then it'll be my time to wallow in the schadenfreude as I remind you that I told you from day one that getting dirt on your political opponent is NOT illegal, even if it comes from those evil Russkies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! You must really enjoy wallowing in the stupidity, Stucki, and spewing this BS of yours on a regular basis since "day one" is the demonstrable proof. Allow me to remind you yet again that no many how many times you post your oft repeated ignorance proclaiming otherwise, it is MOST DEFINITELY illegal:

Section 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

[pertinent sections, emphasis added]

(b) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:

(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or

(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.

(d) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See 11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.

(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.

(f) Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

After numerous members associated with the Trump campaign denied meeting with any Russians, the goal posts were moved quite a distance in multiple increments when Donald Trump, Jr. admitted publicly that he and several members of the Trump campaign did indeed meet with several Russians in an attempt to get dirt on his political opponent. Upon reviewing campaign finance law, it becomes obvious why they continually denied any meetings with foreign nationals. Upon getting caught and being forced by circumstances to admit the contacts, it becomes obvious why they insisted they received "nothing of value" from the Russians. It doesn't matter, though, as it's a violation of several other laws to conspire to break the law, and it's also a crime to lie to federal investigators and Congress in an attempt to cover up said violations of law.

So to recap: It is a definitely a violation of statute to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national, and that includes... your term... "those evil Russkies." Let that sink in, Stucki, please... otherwise you're just repeatedly assmenting yourself.

ASSMENT --
(1) accusing others of harassment when you are guilty of harassing them.
(2) revealing voluntarily to the world that you are an ass.
[synonym for (2): BECLOWN]

Now This News

But you gotta revel in it bigtime for the time being, because everybody outside you guys already knows that when the Mueller report is finally released, it's gonna be the biggest political anticlimax that ever 'exploded' with a dull thud.

Then it'll be my time to wallow in the schadenfreude as I remind you that I told you from day one that getting dirt on your political opponent is NOT illegal, even if it comes from those evil Russkies.

Bezos is the richest man in the world because he doesn't suffer fools, and Pecker is a fool.

Be nice, though, to see the NE brought down by this one...

hey cw, i think that post is worth your attention:

https://medium.com/@jeffreypbezos/no-thank-you-mr-pecker-146e3922310f

And meanwhile - this Bezos/AMI thing is...something!

And it's Friday! :)

There will be...………. POPCORN!

But no, it's not unusual. It's a sad fact that we seemed to take (a sort of) a break during the Obama years (though didn't Issa promise more or less continuous investigations?). It's just that they didn't find anything. We just forget that there were 16 investigations of Benghazi, just because there was nothing there, ultimately.

So investigate away. He's the idiot who thinks he can get away with it.

the shaded bounding box showed up in the preview.

You didn't happen to visit Urban Dictionary before you coined this did you?

Interestingly the definition is:
A great statistical evaluation, primarily akin to the southern border, sometimes prevalent in the Eastern coast, a term used with the conjunction of being an asshole.

The landing page at this moment is listing the words edgelord and disadulation, along with coonman. the first two mesh nicely with your primary definition. the last is just tossed on the list due to the association with current events.

Just before this posted, there were some problems with the new server. This only interrupted service for 10 minutes or so, and seems to now be fixed.

Just thought I'd update everyone, in case anyone got an error message or two...

-CW