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.

 

Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

No you didn't. You quoted me saying information is not a thing of value, which is the legal term being debated here.

Lest there be confusion. Information is valuable. Information is not a 'thing of value' in the eyes of campaign finance law.




posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: underpass61
So, let's say in a perfect lib world everything pans out and Trump Jr. is tried and found guilty of something related to this. What's the penalty? Will he be going to the gallows or just paying some meaningless fine and be on his way?


Well for starters, he now has a criminal record.
Daddy could easily pardon him, but he would still be a criminal.
That would also place Jared in the same criminality boat, stripping him of his clearance and inability to retain his advisor title.

There are other ramifications that I simply dont feel like getting into, but those alone are well enough.

"Perfect LIB world?" Are you suggesting that only libs want to have the code of law practiced? Otherwise i can see why you'd paint with so broad a brush.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

I studied law, yes. I have also linked to law professors who have the same analysis.


Yawn. Bored now.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

I have no problem with what? The Steele dossier? I have problems with the Steele dossier but not due to campaign finance law.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Campaign finance violations aren't going to cost anyone their clearance.

The reason he calls it the perfect lib world has nothing to do with the law but with the libs obsession with jumping to wild conclusions about what happened without any real evidence. He's granting their wild conclusions as reality.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

I studied law, yes. I have also linked to law professors who have the same analysis.


Well, then you should know that there is no such thing as Black & White law.

We have so many damn lawyers because of Interpretation.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yep, you're correct. You can find a lawyer who will argue just about anything. But this is a case where if you follow the cascade that would transpire from calling opposition research a 'thing of value' you would criminalize any campaign officials talking to foreign mationals, even about their own candidate. You would be hard pressed to find many who think that's what this law was intended to do.
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

I studied law, yes. I have also linked to law professors who have the same analysis.


Yawn. Bored now.





posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Yep, you're correct. You can find a lawyer who will argue just about anything. But this is a case where if you follow the cascade that would transpire from calling opposition research a 'thing of value' you would criminalize any campaign officials talking to foreign mationals, even about their own candidate.


So, you've determined what a "thing of value" means.

I don't agree with you.

I agree with alphabetaone.

But, Hey! What are judges for? They let the lawyers present their side - - then they decide which is correct.

I am not a lawyer



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

Before we go any further, would you admit that if my post is accurate it would be very damning to the current situation with the probe?



If your aunt was your uncle.



After you answer that, what would you say is inaccurate? Did comey not take classified info and leak it to get a special counsel?


Was not classified. It was intentionally structured to remain unclassified. He gave it to a friend and told the friend to let people know it originated with him. No leak.

Not interested in addressing laundry lists of BS that you have already been shown to be BS in past threads.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

LMAO communications with the president are always classified. So would be notes about those communications. Comey was the classifying authority on this, so his not marking them as classified is a failure to perform his duty but it doesn't change whether the information was classified. Being that he leaked them (yes, it was a leak as they should not have been released, so it doesn't matter if he intentionally gave them out and admitted to it) and it was also determined he gave classified info to an unauthorized person (his buddy who had some published) I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt on his motives for writing them.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Quick - - someone classify Twitter before its too late.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

There's a reason a judge will strongly recommend against representing yourself...



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Public statements vs. Private communication. Pretty obvious, even if you're not a lawyer.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Delete
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Delete
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

LMAO communications with the president are always classified. So would be notes about those communications.


Amazing that reporters in the press pool aren't arrested then. Or Sarah Sanders for relaying things the POTUS said or virtually everyone else in government that speaks with the President and then makes the mistake of repeating anything discussed.



Comey was the classifying authority on this, so his not marking them as classified is a failure to perform his duty


That is an opinion and a poorly supported opinion at that.



and it was also determined he gave classified info to an unauthorized person (his buddy who had some published)


Oh...please link me to those charges?

Or clear up by what you mean by "it was determined".

By who? Dfairlite on ATS? A tweet by the thin skinned orange menace?



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

oops

Guess it's not an opinion, nor poorly supported. Just another fact.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

oops

Guess it's not an opinion, nor poorly supported. Just another fact.


Nope.
Administration mouthpieces claiming they were classified don't count.

And YES, some of the memo's were classified and remain so, Comey didn't publicly share all his memo's. He submitted some to the Senate Intelligence Committee and discussed in closed session.

You falsely claimed that the Memo he released was classified.
It wasn't.

You falsely claimed it was "determined to be" classified....Yet can't link to anything beside a hazy NON SPECIFIC hill article that says "More than half of the memos (NOTICE PLURAL) former FBI Director James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information"

So effen what? He didn't release the memos that contained classified info.

And the hill article couldn't even point to any official determination, just people calling into to spin on trumps behalf.

Your claim is false and unsupported.



edit on 7-8-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.


Let me post a definition for you:


so·lic·it
səˈlisit/
verb
verb: solicit; 3rd person present: solicits; past tense: solicited; past participle: solicited; gerund or present participle: soliciting
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.
"he called a meeting to solicit their views"


now the reason why I felt it incumbent on me to provide that definition:


(a)Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.


Per the above, even if you attempt to get information from a foreign national (SOLICIT), it is unlawful (a CRIME)
In case you need help unpacking that US Code I'll rewrite it in a way that makes sense

It shall be unlawful for (down to section 2) a person to solicit (back up to section 1a) a other thing of value (back up to section 1) from a foreign national.

Written this way, has a crime been committed simply by the act of trying to obtain information, irrespective of whether or not anything of value was actually obtained?


Does that apply when they call you?




top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join