11 USC 110.20(b) and 11 USC 110.20(g)

Jarod said:
Sorry, a brief look at the code shows you are incorrect.

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

Telling that you did not cite the code directly.
Click to expand...

Knowingly means that a person must:

(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;

(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or

(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.

(5) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:

(i) The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;

(ii) The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;

(iii) The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or....
++

again look at post 5 for more definitions..all monies
 
anatta said:
Knowingly means that a person must:

(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;

(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or

(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.

(5) For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:

(i) The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;

(ii) The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;

(iii) The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or....
++

again look at post 5 for more definitions..all monies
Click to expand...

So, you misquote the statute and then come at me with this shit... We know Jr. knew... he admits it and the emails show it.
 
Jarod said:
Now that Rump is admitting collusion, tell me what you think of this statute!

Also consider that Collusion does not require success, only that the crime was attempted.

What are your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Meeting with a Russian who says they might have something on Hillary does not constitute a crime. You can flail at this all you want; it is idiotic to suggest that it does.

Lying about a meeting also does not constitute a crime. You can flail at this all you want; it is idiotic to suggest that it does.

giphy.gif
 
Jarod said:
Don Jr. is going to be indicted, I cant wait to see how that plays out. I expect it in December or January.
Click to expand...

Another stupid prediction to add to my collection. Would you like to bet? Of course you don't. You're a loud mouthed know nothing on steroids. :rofl2:
 
Jarod said:
So, you misquote the statute and then come at me with this shit... We know Jr. knew... he admits it and the emails show it.
Click to expand...

WTF did I misquote? Post 5 was a legal analysis -you do know what they are -right?
It was a conservative ( in the statues own language) analysis at that ;unlike your over-reaching
++

This"shit" is the statute language!

and then you default back to stupid that that taking a meeting with Russians is WTF you wanna call it :rolleyes:
 
Jarod said:
Meeting with Russians to get them to give something of value to your campaign is a crime.
Click to expand...

No it is not; it was a meeting related to campaign research. NOW, if you PAY someone for a dossier filled with unsubstantiated lies and USE it to conduct a spying operation on an opposing campaign; THAT is not merely CRIMINAL, but something you would expect from a third world dictatorship.

Jarod said:
How can they deny that?
Click to expand...

There is nothing to deny; it isn't a crime to do opposition research or to meet with Russian nationals. But again, you are from planet partisan hack. :rofl2:

Jarod said:
Junior will be indicted
Click to expand...

No he will not be; I am willing to bet a permanent ban on this. But you're a bloviating moron on steroids who knows he is full of shit and wont take that bet.

Jarod said:
and if they can prove Rump himself knew about it he will go down.
Click to expand...

No he will not; I am willing to bet a permanent ban on this. But you're a bloviating moron on steroids who knows he is full of shit and wont take that bet.

Jarod said:
Funny to watch Rump throw his son under the bus this morning.
Click to expand...

It's more fun to watch you remove any doubt what a desperate, low information, partisan hack you are. Another bunch of stupid predictions to save. :rofl2:

MAGA Baby!!
giphy.gif
 
Truth Detector said:
Trump campaign didn't hack anything you willful idiot. Those hacks occurred under Obama you ignorant dumbass. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

They didn't hack, but they solicited Russia to hack.

Trump was on TV literally asking for Russia to hack Clinton, and Russia obliged the same day.
 
anatta said:
WTF did I misquote? Post 5 was a legal analysis -you do know what they are -right?
It was a conservative ( in the statues own language) analysis at that ;unlike your over-reaching
++

This"shit" is the statute language!

and then you default back to stupid that that taking a meeting with Russians is WTF you wanna call it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Its simply not defined that way in the statute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top