"Donald Trump Jr. Just Tweeted Out Pretty Clear Evidence That He Broke The Law [...]"

[Falvlun]

Maybe the courts will go against me here, but if they do I think it's pretty hypocritical since the US tries to influence the politics of other countries anyway.

What sort of unpatriotic sadism is this? Why would you want to allow bad things to happen to us, just because we do them too?

Do you also think Iraq should come over and bomb our cities over false reports that we plan to use our WMDs on them?

Why in the world would you see the effects of our political meddling around the world and say "yup, let's get some of that over here. It's only fair, after all."

Jesus. I'm pretty sure even murderers are smart enough to understand that they don't want to be murdered themselves.

 

[Lyndon]

Actually we did use our WMD on Iraq, just saying.

 

[David1967]

If you don't find the Obama video objectionable, then why are you presenting it as some counterweight to the current conversation discussing the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia to get elected?

You claim that the Ds and the Rs are screaming about the same stuff. But if you do not think that the thing the Rs were screaming about is problematic, then isn't that evidence that they aren't screaming about the same stuff?

You have one side making up problems out of nothing-- the President informing Russia that he will have more lee-way after his election-- and you have the other side with knowledge, via our intelligence agencies, that Russia influenced our election with the intention of getting Trump elected and mounting evidence that Trump's campaign was complicit in that.

And you want to label these the same thing?

I understand that there's a lot of mud slinging on both sides and that this makes it difficult to determine what is true and what is false, what is a "nothingburger" and what is actually problematic.

But I think in this case, there's a clear disparity here. You have already acknowledged that the Obama video was nothing. Do you also believe that everything about Russia and Trump is nothing? If you do, I'd highly encourage you to investigate the evidence available.

OK, Take a deep breath...relax. Not even worth debating to me as I do not care for either side. All the explanation for the way I feel about this is in previous posts. If not to your liking, that's ok.

 

[Mister Emu]

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller is the special counsel leading the federal criminal investigation regarding collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I am certain he is rarely hoodwinked about criminal acts.

I can see that you are certain beyond any doubt that your interpretation of the statute is indisputably correct, to the extent you won't even entertain the idea that Mueller/the special investigation will come to a different conclusion.

That legal scholars are divided leaves me in a different mindset than you; I am in no way saying you are incorrect, just that I am going to wait before I jump on the train.

 

[Falvlun]

OK, Take a deep breath...relax. Not even worth debating to me as I do not care for either side. All the explanation for the way I feel about this is in previous posts. If not to your liking, that's ok.

Your explanation was illogical. You are claiming that both sides are making up dirt about the other in regards to Russia, but unless you believe that everything going on with Russia right now is just as unproblematic as you say that Obama video is, then your claim is unevidenced and contradictory.

It isn't about sides. It's like claiming that two pieces of fruit are apples, while acknowledging that one of them is actually an orange. Your argument made no sense.

 

[Falvlun]

Actually we did use our WMD on Iraq, just saying.

Shh don't give them ideas. We wouldn't want to be hypocrites for not allowing them to bomb our cities.

 

[Nous]

I can see that you are certain beyond any doubt that your interpretation of the statute is indisputably correct, to the extent you won't even entertain the idea that Mueller/the special investigation will come to a different conclusion.

That legal scholars are divided leaves me in a different mindset than you; I am in no way saying you are incorrect, just that I am going to wait before I jump on the train.

I did ask: How would any rational person conclude that the Russian lawyer was offering to volunteer her services for the Trump campaign, or that Junior believed that she was offering to volunteer for the Trump campaign? You didn't answer. I still don't know how a rational person can draw such a conclusion, given that Goldstone clearly stated what the Russian prosecutor wanted to offer--"official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary"--which meets the definition of a "contribution". And there is obviously no mention of the Russian lawyer offering to volunteer her services, besides the fact that it's ridiculous to believe that a lawyer would travel to the US and Junior, Kushner and Manafort (et al.) would solicit a meeting with her simply so that she could volunteer some sort of services.

 

[Nakosis]

What sort of unpatriotic sadism is this? Why would you want to allow bad things to happen to us, just because we do them too?

Do you also think Iraq should come over and bomb our cities over false reports that we plan to use our WMDs on them?

Why in the world would you see the effects of our political meddling around the world and say "yup, let's get some of that over here. It's only fair, after all."

Jesus. I'm pretty sure even murderers are smart enough to understand that they don't want to be murdered themselves.

I don't embrace hypocrisy like some folks.

 

[Nakosis]

This is just some of the facts and evidence available. Feel free to actually consider some of it before pretending it doesn't exist.

If you haven't noticed, I have. My position is that it's a political embarrassment, but isn't a crime.

I think what's ludicrous is you feeling you opinion means anything. Nobody cares what you think or I think. The court, the legal system will decide. Until then, your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to disagree.

 

[Nakosis]

You're confessing to experiencing schadenfreude at what you perceive to be the consternation of liberals. This might not be the best time to do that.

When would be a good time?

 

[Nakosis]

That doesn't apply outside of the legal system, and it doesn't even apply to all players in a courtroom. Certainly the DA that filed charges thinks the defendant is guilty.

People like you and me are free to judge by our own standards. I think that most of us found O.J. Simpson guilty of murder and Bill Cosby guilty of date rape even though neither was found guilty of those crimes formally.

How about Nixon? Was he guilty? Once again, not formally. He just quit his job and went home a free man but I'd hazard a guess that most informed observers found him guilty.

Another important distinction between a formal judge or juror and somebody outside of the process is that we have more verdicts available to us, including probably guilty and probably innocent. Innocent is apparently not an option in court. Available verdicts as I understand it are guilty, not guilty, or no verdict (hung jury/mistrial).

And finally, we are free to change our verdicts if additional evidence suggests that we should. We don't need to wait for the process to play out before making tentative judgments.

My position is that Trump is very probably guilty of criminal activity given what we know about his character and the incredible number revelations in just six months. What criminal activity is he guilty of? We don't know just what yet. He may be guilty of collusion with the Russians, obstruction of justice, emoluments violations, and/or money laundering.

If he is, we don't yet know which combination of crimes he has committed, and we sure don't know if he'll ever be held accountable for any of them if guilty. But I for one have seen enough already to judge that the Trump family is probably a criminal enterprise. I see societal parasites with a sense of entitlement and no respect for the rule of law or fair play.

Fair enough, my opinion is that this is no crime. An embarrassment sure. That's what I started out saying, people disagree, fine. So just saying if the court system proves me wrong. I'll accept that.

We are entitled to have differing opinions in this world aren't we?

I don't even expect he'll get charged criminally, but we'll see.

 

[Nous]

my opinion is that this is no crime.

Is your opinion inferred from any fact? If so, what fact?

It is a fact that Junior solicited and attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer as a result of being told that she was offering "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary". Right?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't embrace hypocrisy like some folks.

Your sanctimony notwithstanding, your argument remains unreasonable, anti-American, and likely hypocritical in regards to a host of other actions our government performs that you would object to being done to us in return.

 

[Nakosis]

Your sanctimony notwithstanding, your argument remains unreasonable, anti-American, and likely hypocritical in regards to a host of other actions our government performs that you would object to being done to us in return.

While you're entitled to your opinion, I obviously disagree.

 

[Nakosis]

Is your opinion inferred from any fact? If so, what fact?

It is a fact that Junior solicited and attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer as a result of being told that she was offering "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary". Right?

Yes, though I think her being Russian wouldn't normally be as important. What if she were Canadian? Would there be the same amount of hype?

Maybe that's besides the point.

I don't believe he intent of the law was to keep folks from receiving information from foreign nationals. The intent was to prevent a person in power from acting as an agent for foreign interests. DT Jr was acting out of his own interests. If he had offered nuclear launch codes or access to military intelligence then it be a criminal matter.

 

[Nous]

I don't believe he intent of the law was to keep folks from receiving information from foreign nationals.

Is that belief inferred from any fact? If so,what fact?

It is a fact that giving "official documents and information" (especially ones obtained illegally) that incriminate a candidate in a federal election meets the definition of "contribution" (“any gift … or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i)). Right?

 

[esmith]

Is that belief inferred from any fact? If so,what fact?

It is a fact that giving "official documents and information" (especially ones obtained illegally) that incriminate a candidate in a federal election meets the definition of "contribution" (“any gift … or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i)). Right?

Whoa. What "official documents",if you are referring to the hacked emails from Podesta or the DNC they would not be classified as "official" What facts do you have that leads you to believe that the offered documents that did not exist could have been obtained illegally.
Also were there any "documents".
Also 2 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i)) says

(8)(A) The term "contribution" includes-
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;

Was there any "contribution". I don't think saying you have something is in actuality having something.
I think you are grasping at straws.

 

[Nous]

Whoa. What "official documents",if you are referring to the hacked emails from Podesta or the DNC they would not be classified as "official"

Insofar as Junior's criminal intent, it doesn't matter what the official documents actually were (are) or how the Russians obtained them.

I noted "especially ones obtained illegally" simply because I assume if there are any such documents, they were hacked, since there are no such documents in the public domain (and, if there were, the Russians wouldn't need to be secretly offering them to Junior). Goldstone's email says that what was being offered "is obviously very high level and sensitive information".

 

[Nous]

Was there any "contribution".

Trump obviously believed there would be a contribution of "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary". That's why he went to such efforts to set up the meeting, attend it, and invite Kushner and Manafort.

 

[Nakosis]

Is that belief inferred from any fact? If so,what fact?

It is a fact that giving "official documents and information" (especially ones obtained illegally) that incriminate a candidate in a federal election meets the definition of "contribution" (“any gift … or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i)). Right?

The fact is intent of this law is to regulate campaign spending and limit fundraising. You're relying on a definition of contribution and not the intent of the law itself. That's a fact.

You find a definition in a law for a word and assume that the law now somehow applies in every case that word is used?

Really, that's not how it works.