As much as you wish he did, he didn't accept opposition research.
He accepted a meeting and discussed an adoption program.
Seems Like Donald Trump Jr admitted to looking for Russian Info
- Thread starter cernjSHU
- Start date
As much as you wish he did, he didn't accept opposition research.
He accepted a meeting and discussed an adoption program.
I think we can work together. Everything into the 2016 election. We're going after Trump, Jr full throttle to find out what happened. We're going full throttle on what the president knew. We're going full throttle to find out what the "extraordinary circumstances" were as to how this woman got into our borders without a Visa. We're going full throttle on the 33,000 emails. We're going full throttle on democratic people meeting with the Ukraines. And finally we're looking into the DNC robbing Sanders of the nomination.
Didn't say that they did. Did I?
I just asked why you think they would have to for Don Jr to be breaking the law, because that is not what the law says.
You took him at his word that he didn't know who he was meeting with. He lied. Now you take him at his word that he didn't get anything?
But this even argues he doesn't even have to accept anything.
http://www.commoncause.org/policy-a...doj-fec-complaints-filed-against-trump-jr.pdf
Sign me up! Bipartisanship at its finest!
If I could quibble I don't want to waste taxpayer dollars on the DNC thwarting the Sanders nomination. I kind of view that as a single party problem. Now if Bobbie Solo filed a class action lawsuit claiming the DNC robbed him of his candidate, I would get behind that movement.
Undercover cop asks me if I want to buy some cocaine. He says meet me in 10 minutes in the parking lot. I go to the parking lot and say whatcha got? He says he's got a gram and it cost $100 bucks. I say no thanks and walk away. No crime, no bust. Would my wife be happy I did that? No.
Trump gets a call that "a crown prosecutor" has some info. He takes the meeting and brings his posse. The lawyer turns out to be a a bit of flake. the high level info promise was just bait to get him to discuss the adoption bill. No info was exchanged.
For you to draw a guilty verdict on that scenario is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous since you area lawyer.
Treason is defined too narrowly for this.
Solicitation did not occur.
No contribution was accepted.
I have not seen where he has lied under oath. Lying to the media is not illegal.
"To make this unlawful, Trump, Kushner and Manafort would have to "ask for something, and it would have to be an express or implied ask," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California at Irvine. And they would have to know whom they were meeting, he added."
Yes, it smells, but that about all you got.
Last edited:
Big disagreement from me on this. I think the DNC is rigged already with superdelegates, but the process is what it is. However when the American people watch these debates they have to be fair. If you think fairness to the American people is not an important part of the process, then why even waste our times investigating everyone else.
You say that I am taking him at his word.
I am waiting for someone to show proof that he accepted something. No one has done that.
Cop: Have you been drinking?
Driver: No
Cop: I think you are a Republican. I don't believe you. You are under arrest.
Last edited:
That's not what you said.
So as much as I wish he did, he didn't, unless someone can prove he did?
You have a tendency to try and put words in people's mouths. I didn't say anything like that, but in the interest of our new found bipartisanship, I will yield to your wish. We are investigating the DNC/Sanders case too!
What is our end game? Jail for the collaborators? Is this a criminal investigation and if the worst charges we can bring are confirmed, are we concluding the election was compromised?
So. Stop there for a moment.
Asking what drugs someone has is not illegal.
Asking what information someone from Russia has IS illegal.
But lets keep going with your scenario anyway
When she says what she has... It is too late for Don Jr to walk away. The information is the item she is giving him. He "tried" the drugs but didn't like them (based on his own admission)
Do you still think there is no problem if you try the drugs?
1) What is the definition of solicit?
2) Common Cause, LOL??? Headed by Robert Reich, liberal Democrat and big Clinton friend. Funded by liberal democrats including George Soros.
You've gone mad, come back to us, Merge!!!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2
"
(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.
(1) The following types of communications constitute solicitations:
(i) A communication that provides a method of making a contribution or donation, regardless of the communication. This includes, but is not limited to, providing a separate card, envelope, or reply device that contains an address to which funds may be sent and allows contributors or donors to indicate the dollar amount of their contribution or donation to the candidate, political committee, or other organization.
(ii) A communication that provides instructions on how or where to send contributions or donations, including providing a phone number specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations. However, a communication does not, in and of itself, satisfy the definition of “to solicit” merely because it includes a mailing address or phone number that is not specifically dedicated to facilitating the making of contributions or donations."
So saying, "Yes. I would like(Love) that thing of value, please bring it to my office in Trump Tower.
Seems to fit in that definition, no?
First I had heard of them was looking online today.
They laid out the case that I have been posting here. If you take issue with anything their complain says, you can post it here. Often find people go after the source when they don't want to discuss the contents.
No, people know a partisan hack group when they see it. Would you link anything from Fox News or The Heritage Foundation?
There you goo again with another illogical conclusion.
Just because we cannot prove, does not mean he did not do it.
I have not said he did or did not do it.
I have said that you stating that he did (accept information) is speculation.
Can't state it any clearer.
Wrong...he didn't try any drugs, so there is no crime. So your defense is that because Trump forgot/lied about having the meeting, than everything he says following it is a lie. At this point no information was shared and nothing was provided in return...and, there doesn't appear to be any follow-up meeting or contact.
Care to cite that statute? You guys are too funny.
Not to mention, we don't know what was said in the meeting. He could have walked in the meeting and sat there like a stone while she babbled on. Who knows.
Again, you keep wishing. You keep speculating but stating your musings as fact.
"Asking what information someone from Russia has IS illegal"
The capital "IS" is a nice touch too.
I realize you hate Trump, hate his family, hate Republicans, hate conservatives, yada yada.
You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. My unsolicited advice is keep your powder dry and wait for a better issue to voice your disdain for the election results.
Unless of course some new and actual facts emerge, at which point I will be all ears (except for my thingy; that's a foot).
Well done.
Now we must be serious and work toward a consensus we can move ahead with.
I have agreed to the investigation,but asked for a scope and end game. What do really want?
yes you are correct.
I will rephrase that: "As much as you wish he did, we do not know if he did or did not accept opposition research."
I will add that he made a statement that he did not accept opposition research and the Russian attorney has corroborated that.
Ummmmmmmmm..... (Is that the sound of you doing some middle eastern meditation?)
I think you have to have the same penalty for both. I hate penalties in college sports for a year where they penalize a school that wasn't going to be good anyway. So you can't just say you are out of office Trump. Clinton you are out of office too. If Clinton and Trump are guilty of similar actions make them suffer the same consequences. $100 million fine toward the national debt. Granted that's no dent at all in the debt, but it's something that could prevent these types of events in the future.
Last edited:
I've done it several times in this thread.
Indeed, but even before that soliciting the information itself also appears to be a crime based on the statute I posted above, and by the definition of solicit also posted above.
No I just use logic.
Logic says Trump would not take that meeting unless he was seeking something of value.
Logic said Trump would know who he is meeting with.
Logic says that when Trump says she told him ambiguous information, that he heard her make a claim against the DNC.
That's not a wish list. That is a what is the least possibly damaging thing to have occurred.
The most damaging thing being that they got information they actually used which is why Trump said he was going to have a bombshell speech about Hillary the following Monday - 20 minutes after the meeting with the Russian lawyer ended.
"Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense,"
Sounds like at a minimum it was bad information, no?
Maybe it was nonsense, maybe it wasn't.
We don't know that.
We know she was to deliver information related to Hillary which Don Jr believed to be from the Russian government. We know that Don Jr said the information she provided was vague and ambiguous.
Don Jr did say she didn't talk about Hillatry or the DNC. He said the information was vague and ambiguous.
There is not section of the law which says, you may not solicit something of value from a foreign national unless it turns out to be a twinkie.
Why should we? Don didn't.
She said something... correct? You can't take issue with that. Words came out of her mouth.
You have two options. Her info was good, or her info was bad.
That's it.
The very best case for Trump Jr is that he accepted information that turned out to be bad.
Please show me why it is legal to do that based on the law I cited above.
Indeed.
Like logically when Trump Jr said he didn't know who he was meeting, I called bullshit because a guy worth millions of dollars doesn't just take meetings and invite other associates unless he knows who he is meeting and why?
Remember that wild speculation on my part which turned out to be the truth?
So if someone goes to buy drugs and the drug dealer sells him a chocolate bar, is that guy guilty of buying drugs because that was his intent?
When I said of course he would know who he was meeting with and why.
you said:
full article from Forbes at this link.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...der-involving-donald-trump-jr/2/#737c27b07b32
Excerpt:
"While remarkable, and even shocking to some, Trump’s emails are not proof that he was caught “red-handed.” In fact, as to possible legal violations, while the emails may provide fertile ground for investigating possible criminal charges, without more, they are nothing more than political fodder. And, there needs to be an applicable criminal statute for there to be a criminal prosecution.
The word of the month and on the pundit circuit is “collusion”, a term that any lawyer who practices in this space recognizes is irrelevant and inapplicable -- bordering on nonsensical except as a descriptor -- in this context. Strictly speaking, “collusion” is only relevant in antitrust law and itself is not a crime. While there may be a general sentiment that “collusive” conduct is “wrong” and “unseemly”, even “despicable” is not criminal. So, while those who oppose the President may cling to these emails as the proverbial “holy grail” to prove collusion with Russia, the emails lack that force of proof."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...der-involving-donald-trump-jr/2/#737c27b07b32
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...der-involving-donald-trump-jr/2/#737c27b07b32
Excerpt:
"While remarkable, and even shocking to some, Trump’s emails are not proof that he was caught “red-handed.” In fact, as to possible legal violations, while the emails may provide fertile ground for investigating possible criminal charges, without more, they are nothing more than political fodder. And, there needs to be an applicable criminal statute for there to be a criminal prosecution.
The word of the month and on the pundit circuit is “collusion”, a term that any lawyer who practices in this space recognizes is irrelevant and inapplicable -- bordering on nonsensical except as a descriptor -- in this context. Strictly speaking, “collusion” is only relevant in antitrust law and itself is not a crime. While there may be a general sentiment that “collusive” conduct is “wrong” and “unseemly”, even “despicable” is not criminal. So, while those who oppose the President may cling to these emails as the proverbial “holy grail” to prove collusion with Russia, the emails lack that force of proof."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobf...der-involving-donald-trump-jr/2/#737c27b07b32
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-jr-legal-jeopardy-635182
"But the fulfillment of a promise made by her or an intermediary is not the concern of the statute: The mere solicitation of a “thing of value” from a foreign national could be enough to trigger it. Whether Trump Jr. attended the meeting or dozed through it could well be beside the point. He eagerly sought it. Georgetown University Law School professor Paul Taylor, who is also a federal prosecutor, told MSNBC on Tuesday that federal prosecutors already had probable cause to arrest Trump Jr."
"But the fulfillment of a promise made by her or an intermediary is not the concern of the statute: The mere solicitation of a “thing of value” from a foreign national could be enough to trigger it. Whether Trump Jr. attended the meeting or dozed through it could well be beside the point. He eagerly sought it. Georgetown University Law School professor Paul Taylor, who is also a federal prosecutor, told MSNBC on Tuesday that federal prosecutors already had probable cause to arrest Trump Jr."
Soliciting anything of value for a campaign is against the law the same way soliciting a prostitute is against the law (in most states)
You don't need to have sex to get arrested.
Maybe that a clearer analogy for you?
