It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

17 Legal Experts on What Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails About Russia Meeting Prove and Don't Prove.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I was under the impression that the meeting took place because she said she had dirt on the DNC/Clinton campaign, then, when she got the meeting, she switched to the adoption thing. Basically a bait and switch. She just used the excuse of having dirt to get her real agenda out.

We're lookin' at, at least a year of lawyers and committees arguing this one way or another.
edit on 12-7-2017 by DAVID64 because: puncuation...it counts




posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Until one of them puts their money where their mouth is and steps up to prosecute him what's the point? I seriously doubt anyone is going to because it's not a very sturdy case and they have a lot of arguments to win to make such a thing actually happen, but hey if it makes you happy who am I to take that from you



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
So if Im understanding correctly, people are upset because Trump Jr was told there was damaging info on Hillary and he wanted to find out what it was?

Is this the evidence of Russians hacking the election weve been hearing about since December?
Have we moved away from claims of hacking and are now saying a meeting between Jr and a lawyer is the reason Trump won?

Im not sure Im understanding what the issue is here, seems to me like the media have finally found some sort of Russian connection to Trump and are blowing it out of proportion to justify 7 months of non stop total bs.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
I used the secondary line from the article as it's more accurate and less click baity.

Vox


I reached out to 17 legal experts and asked them these questions directly. Twelve said that the case for collusion and conspiracy is near conclusive, though it’s not entirely clear what the legal consequences will be. Five experts believe the circumstantial evidence is damning but we don’t yet know enough to draw any conclusions.


Personally I believe that the applicable legal violation is this:


We do know that federal law prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions (including things of value) from a foreign individual or entity. Given the revelations this morning, there is a strong case to show that Donald Trump Jr. did solicit information, which would be valuable to the campaign. And if Manafort and Kushner were part of this plan, as it now seems, that raises the serious specter of conspiracy.


However, I doubt any federal prosecutor will take up the case and as the Congressional and special investigations continue it may be best to let Jr. play with some more rope.


Yeah... when that "thing of value" is proof Hillary committed a crime, then What?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   
12 out of 17 liberal lawyers think a law was broken. Great! Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

12 of 17 stated they believe there's criminality. Your obsession with theantediluvian is leaking again.


That's actually the opposite of what they said. They said they were unsure what the legal ramifications were, which hardly stating a belief in criminality. Reading comprehension isn't your thing, huh?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Ultimately it doesn't matter what she said once the meeting started. They went there with the intent of getting dirt, possibly violating the law in the process. Certainly knowing that "Russia was acting in favor of Trumps campaign".

I don't know about you, and maybe this would have made me a lousy politician but if a foreign government, notably an adversarial one was actively trying to elect me, I'd be very concerned as to why and would be working with intelligence agencies to figure it out and try to stop it.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Criminality but unsure how it could be successfully prosecuted.

So...



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

hi - on what basis are you calling them " liberals " ???

i has already asked a question about thier political affiliations - but CBA googling 17 names

i realise that you MAY have personal knowledge of these peoples politics - i have no idea who any of them even are [ being a UK citizen with no connection to the legal proffesssion // accedemia ]



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DAVID64

It seems she offered this in exchange for a discussion about lifting sanctions aka Russia - US adoption policy. So yes, I'd say there was value.


Wrong.
According to you, it might be of some value.
But in a court of law, you cannot put a monetary value on information of that type.
Dirt on Hillary Clinton is everywhere, any dumbass can find it....worthless.
Now if she was offering say, information on a cure for cancer to Trump Jr that would have an effect on a global scale...they could probably put a monetary value on that.
Give it up...Trump is President for at least the rest of his 1st term but most likely for 2 terms.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

You aren't understanding it correctly. The thread is about what was potentially illegal or not about the meeting Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort had with a Russian lawyer.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

You don't need to put monetary value on the information for it to be determined to have value.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
and upon reading thje article again - a hillarious quote leaps out :


No competent prosecutor would bring a case against these three men based upon the known facts.


from proffessor Steven Duke [ yale university ]

one could read so much into this



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Goldstone contacts Jr. to meet with a Russian lawyer that claims to have dirt on Clinton including documents. Information has value. It is illegal for a campaign to take anything of value from a foreign source.

Whatever this lawyer turns out to be the clear intent (imo) of the three was to go get dirt.


so to sum up your theory, the dirt that may or may not have been delivered, has to be considered as money, or of monetary value and considered at contribution from a foreign source in order for this to be anything other than what I initially stated?



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Vox


We found 17 political ideologues butt hurt at losing an election who are also law professors. None of them can actually point to a crime, but 12 of 17 say the FEELZ it was bad.
edit on 12/7/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No set value has to be assigned.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Crimes were pointed to.



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

That's one of the opinions, I'm glad people are finally reading the article and discussing the points brought up. It most likely won't ever be prosecuted for those reasons.
edit on 7/12/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: bender151

Since I had just woke up, and Kali didn't post the full title of the article, I was just skimming for the punchline that was "5 said its damning'.

Which I owned up to, and then edited into my first post.

So now it seems reading comprehension isn't your thing as somehow you missed me owning up to it despite it being done so biggly.
edit on 12-7-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes it would be interesting to see a Republican conduct the survey, and then a libertarian sort of bastard that pisses everybody off.





top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join