No, but if it is determined to be a foreign nationalist offering, you dont have the meeting, and you dont email your excitement about attaining the information. Instead, you call the FBI.
11 USC 110.20(b) and 11 USC 110.20(g)
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No, but if it is determined to be a foreign nationalist offering, you dont have the meeting, and you dont email your excitement about attaining the information. Instead, you call the FBI.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Or, maybe you could have hired an outside law firm to contract with another firm and then you would have been ok with it right?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
The 33,000 emails in question were ALREADY deleted by Hillary's henchmen and wiped clean with bleach bit. When President Trump made that crack, there was no server to hack. There were no emails to delete.
What President then candidate Trump was referring to at the time was the concern that Hillary's server was unsecured and was likely hacked. Trump was merely saying that if Russia had the 33,000 emails that Hillary never turned over they would be rewarded by the press if they turned them over.
Can't believe you needed that explained to you.
But the only people who knew that were the DNC and the FBI. Trump didn't know that. So the joke doesn't make sense.
That's not what he said. What he said, very plainly was:
“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”
So now you're trying to jury-rig what Trump said after the fact to fit your narrative.
Textbook goalpost shifting.
IT would be legal. Regardless, any crimes of the Clinton campaign would not exonerate Trump.
WTF are you babbling on about??
we were talking about whether the statues includes intangibles as contribution
The statute says "anything of value."
Well, you kind of have to talk it over to make sure of exactly who they really are and exactly what they're offering first, more than just "compromising" info on an opponent. It turned out she offered nothing pertaining to what she claimed and nothing to report to the FBI and Veselnitskaya was not a government lawyer. They realized this when she came to talk to them.
So, they had a talk with her.
Schiff also had a talk with someone for about the same amount of time on the clock...but his talk was over the phone. Unlike Veselnitskaya who changed her tune when she talked to Trump Jr., this guy stuck to his story to the end of the call.
So, he had a talk with him.
Meeting Russians for dirt on Clinton? It may be immoral but it's not illegal
Paul Callan
By Paul Callan
Updated 9:05 PM ET, Tue July 11, 2017
Yes, there were meetings, but there was no "collusion" -- and, by the way, "collusion" is not a crime anyway.
On the subject of "collusion," it is true that it is not literally a federal crime. "Collusion" is generally defined as "a secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose." The federal crime closest to the concept would be "conspiracy," but that "conspiracy" would need to amount to something illegal -- like, for instance, placing a wiretap without a court order, hacking into a computer network or (for another example) breaking into the Watergate office complex.
Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material. It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.
In fact, if you could stretch the conspiracy statute to apply to your right to political free speech under the First Amendment, it would likely also provide a shield from prosecution. It really wouldn't matter that you got your info from the Russians.
The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a "thing of value" from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.
Why Russia-probe investigators are looking at anti-money laundering database
If you charged Trump campaign officials with this as a crime, you would have to charge Clinton campaign officials if they accepted information or volunteer services from, say, undocumented aliens, as they are clearly foreign nationals. And don't even say the word treason. Treason, which can be punishable by death, is a whole different animal reserved for people who do things like steal atomic secrets and betray their country.
Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.
The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.
If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html
Paul Callan
By Paul Callan
Updated 9:05 PM ET, Tue July 11, 2017
Yes, there were meetings, but there was no "collusion" -- and, by the way, "collusion" is not a crime anyway.
On the subject of "collusion," it is true that it is not literally a federal crime. "Collusion" is generally defined as "a secret agreement or cooperation for an illegal or deceitful purpose." The federal crime closest to the concept would be "conspiracy," but that "conspiracy" would need to amount to something illegal -- like, for instance, placing a wiretap without a court order, hacking into a computer network or (for another example) breaking into the Watergate office complex.
Even if Trump campaign officials had happily accepted damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russians -- and there is no evidence that they did -- so far there has been nothing to prove that they engaged in illegal activity through their interest in obtaining the material. It might be morally and politically objectionable to gather dirt about your campaign opponent from an enemy of the United States, but the mere acceptance and use of the material would not be illegal.
In fact, if you could stretch the conspiracy statute to apply to your right to political free speech under the First Amendment, it would likely also provide a shield from prosecution. It really wouldn't matter that you got your info from the Russians.
The idea that this is some kind of campaign finance law violation doesn't fly either. The statute requires campaign solicitation of cash or a "thing of value" from a foreign national. Information about Hillary Clinton is not what the law had in mind. The exchange of information is a core First Amendment/free speech concept, and Americans are free to accept ideas and information from US citizens and foreign nationals alike, even if the information is damaging to a political opponent.
Why Russia-probe investigators are looking at anti-money laundering database
If you charged Trump campaign officials with this as a crime, you would have to charge Clinton campaign officials if they accepted information or volunteer services from, say, undocumented aliens, as they are clearly foreign nationals. And don't even say the word treason. Treason, which can be punishable by death, is a whole different animal reserved for people who do things like steal atomic secrets and betray their country.
Meeting with allegedly supportive Russians does not a criminal case make, as Yoda might say. On the other hand, just ask frequent CNN contributor (and Nixon-era White House counsel) John Dean about the notion that "it's not the crime but the cover-up" that you have to worry about.
The President and his supporters get very hot and bothered about the so-called "Russia Investigation" and the Don Jr. email chain adds to the growing body of evidence that a lot of people connected to the Trump campaign have been lying about connections to and meetings with supportive Russians.
If they lie to federal investigators, the Mueller grand jury or congressional committees about this, charges of perjury, lying to federal investigators and obstruction of justice will follow. Just ask John Dean. When the smoke clears and the Trump Jr. email coverage is over, remember the covering-up, because if there is criminality in the Trump administration, that is where it will be found.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
still pretending to be a lawyer, retard?......most of us know how to read a statute.....
Marc Thiessen: The Clinton campaign sought dirt on Trump from Russian officials -- Where's the outrage?
By Marc Thiessen | The Washington Post Aug. 3, 2018
All of Washington is waiting with bated breath to find out whether the Mueller investigation will provide evidence proving that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
So far, "Exhibit A" against President Trump is the meeting Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had with a group of Russians claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting should never have happened. When you get an email offering to provide "very high level and sensitive information" from the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" that could "incriminate Hillary" Clinton and is part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" you don't reply by saying "I love it." You call the FBI.
The president claims he did not know about the meeting. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, says he did. Whether he knew is beside the point. Senior officials of his campaign were willing to accept help from Vladimir Putin; they were saved only because the meeting was a bust. The Russians didn't end up providing any dirt.
But as bad as the Trump Tower meeting was, it took place at the request of the Russians. They were the ones who approached the Trump campaign, not the other way around.
By contrast, the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources. They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump.
Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Steele's work was paid for by Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump.
Clinton claims she did not know about Steele's work. It doesn't matter. Imagine if Michael Cohen, or another lawyer paid by the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee, had hired a former British spy with campaign money to collect dirt on Clinton from Russian intelligence and foreign ministry officials. Do you think that everyone in Washington would be saying: "There's no evidence Trump knew, so no big deal -- nothing to see here?" Of course not.
Moreover, Clinton officials have defended Steele's actions. Brian Fallon, Clinton's campaign spokesman, has said he "would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help" Steele and would happily have spread dirt obtained from the Russians. "Opposition research happens on every campaign," he told The Post. He also said: "I am damn glad [Elias] pursued this on behalf of our campaign and only regret more of this material was not verified in time for the voters to learn it before the election."
In other words, "I love it."
We also know that the Democrats covered up their involvement. The dossier was published by BuzzFeed in January, but it was not until Oct. 24, 2017 -- more than nine months later -- that Americans learned it was the DNC and the Clinton campaign that paid for it. If it did nothing wrong, why did Team Clinton leave Americans in the dark about its involvement for so long?
Let's be clear: None of this excuses the Trump campaign's reprehensible behavior in accepting a meeting with Russians claiming to be government agents offering dirt on Clinton. Mueller's investigation is not a witch hunt. If Mueller finds that anyone on the Trump campaign entered into a criminal conspiracy with Russia, they should go to jail.
Furthermore, none of this calls into question the intelligence community's assessment that the Russians wanted Trump to win -- something Putin publicly confirmed in his Helsinki news conference with Trump. But the intelligence community assessment also found that the Kremlin expected Clinton to win. The Russians are not stupid. They were preparing for the prospect of a Clinton presidency, and they played both sides. That's why millions of dollars in Russian cash were sloshing around Clinton World -- including $500,000 Bill Clinton received for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.
Russia continues to pose a threat. Their goal, according to our intelligence community, was not just to help Trump but also to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." They are playing a long game. If we are to counter the Russian threat, we need to understand its complexities -- and that means we have to look beyond Trump.
By Marc Thiessen | The Washington Post Aug. 3, 2018
All of Washington is waiting with bated breath to find out whether the Mueller investigation will provide evidence proving that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
So far, "Exhibit A" against President Trump is the meeting Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had with a group of Russians claiming to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. That meeting should never have happened. When you get an email offering to provide "very high level and sensitive information" from the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" that could "incriminate Hillary" Clinton and is part of "Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" you don't reply by saying "I love it." You call the FBI.
The president claims he did not know about the meeting. His former lawyer, Michael Cohen, says he did. Whether he knew is beside the point. Senior officials of his campaign were willing to accept help from Vladimir Putin; they were saved only because the meeting was a bust. The Russians didn't end up providing any dirt.
But as bad as the Trump Tower meeting was, it took place at the request of the Russians. They were the ones who approached the Trump campaign, not the other way around.
By contrast, the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources. They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump.
Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin."
Steele's work was paid for by Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump.
Clinton claims she did not know about Steele's work. It doesn't matter. Imagine if Michael Cohen, or another lawyer paid by the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee, had hired a former British spy with campaign money to collect dirt on Clinton from Russian intelligence and foreign ministry officials. Do you think that everyone in Washington would be saying: "There's no evidence Trump knew, so no big deal -- nothing to see here?" Of course not.
Moreover, Clinton officials have defended Steele's actions. Brian Fallon, Clinton's campaign spokesman, has said he "would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help" Steele and would happily have spread dirt obtained from the Russians. "Opposition research happens on every campaign," he told The Post. He also said: "I am damn glad [Elias] pursued this on behalf of our campaign and only regret more of this material was not verified in time for the voters to learn it before the election."
In other words, "I love it."
We also know that the Democrats covered up their involvement. The dossier was published by BuzzFeed in January, but it was not until Oct. 24, 2017 -- more than nine months later -- that Americans learned it was the DNC and the Clinton campaign that paid for it. If it did nothing wrong, why did Team Clinton leave Americans in the dark about its involvement for so long?
Let's be clear: None of this excuses the Trump campaign's reprehensible behavior in accepting a meeting with Russians claiming to be government agents offering dirt on Clinton. Mueller's investigation is not a witch hunt. If Mueller finds that anyone on the Trump campaign entered into a criminal conspiracy with Russia, they should go to jail.
Furthermore, none of this calls into question the intelligence community's assessment that the Russians wanted Trump to win -- something Putin publicly confirmed in his Helsinki news conference with Trump. But the intelligence community assessment also found that the Kremlin expected Clinton to win. The Russians are not stupid. They were preparing for the prospect of a Clinton presidency, and they played both sides. That's why millions of dollars in Russian cash were sloshing around Clinton World -- including $500,000 Bill Clinton received for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.
Russia continues to pose a threat. Their goal, according to our intelligence community, was not just to help Trump but also to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." They are playing a long game. If we are to counter the Russian threat, we need to understand its complexities -- and that means we have to look beyond Trump.
So the story goes today, but the trumps seem to change their story often as time goes by.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
At that point in time EVERYONE who was paying attention knew about her 33,000 deleted emails. It was common knowledge
That you remained ignorant of the fact is not President Trumps problemo
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Yes. The operative word being “find”. The emails had already been deleted. He didn’t say hack
Epic fail on your part
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Right you wouldn’t have a problem if Trump had sent Michael Cohen to get some dirt from “muh russia”
Sure GayRod
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
So if an illegal alien volunteers for a campaign of a democrat are they breaking campaign finance laws and should they all go to jail? Even the candidate?
Wrong you willful idiot.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Something that makes me laugh about all of this is that not one democrat ever questions whether there is “dirt” on Hillary
You never hear a JPP liberal saying “there couldn’t possibly be dirt on Hillary. She is the cleanest politician ever”
No they take it as an article of faith that she is dirty
You never hear a JPP liberal saying “there couldn’t possibly be dirt on Hillary. She is the cleanest politician ever”
No they take it as an article of faith that she is dirty