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: 17
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

oops

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


Author of Oops!

John F. Solomon is an American media executive. He is currently vice president of digital video and an opinion contributor for The Hill. He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times. He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.

en.wikipedia.org...




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




posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

No, I claimed he gave classified information to an unauthorized person and he did. His buddy. Or did he lie about giving all of the memos to his friend?



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Source ad homs are quite unimpressive and large part of the reason the left is woefully uninformed.


There were seven memos in total. Four included classified information. Two were classified as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Two were classified as secret.


I guess the Washington post is right biased now?
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

No, I claimed he gave classified information to an unauthorized person and he did. His buddy. Or did he lie about giving all of the memos to his friend?


Speaking of lying..

Link me to where Comey testified he gave all his Memo's including those classified to his buddy.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Source ad homs are quite unimpressive and large part of the reason the left is woefully uninformed.


There were seven memos in total. Four included classified information. Two were classified as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Two were classified as secret.


I guess the Washington post is right biased now?


Did I mention the Washington Post? No, I did not.

I gave info on the contributing author.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Weird.

You seem to be changing what you are claiming?

No one disputed that Comey wrote classified memos.

You claimed he gave all his memos to a civilian friend including the classified memo's.

that is a lie you can't support.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

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?


I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here, but I will assume it to mean, "does it apply if they are the ones to make first contact?"

So let's post (yet again) the 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals along with the 2 relevant sections.



(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.



Section (1) defines the illegality or unlawfulness of a foreign national to directly or indirectly present an offer or implied promise on that offer with respect to a Federal, State, or local election. (This would fall under the umbrella of them making first contact)

Section (2) defines how a US Citizen cannot solicit or make first contact with a foreign national or receive (stuff as defined in section 1 subparagraphs A or B (in this case we're talking a "thing of value") from a foreign national...including implied promise to deliver said "thing of value".

Basically covering both scenarios, either making first contact or receiving contact first.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Dfairlite

Weird.

You seem to be changing what you are claiming?

No one disputed that Comey wrote classified memos.

You claimed he gave all his memos to a civilian friend including the classified memo's.

that is a lie you can't support.



I will take this a bit further and say that during the congressional inquiry, Comey stated that he only provided to Richman a single memo which he had redacted, not to give them the memo.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Comey had six memos. Half contained classified info. He gave 4 memos to his friend. Do the math.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Let's assume that is true. Comey removed classified information from proper storage and took it home with him after being terminated, unauthorized. That's as illegal as it gets. The fact that he redacted part of the memo says he knew what he had was classified.
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Did that really go over your head?



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: network dude

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?


I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here, but I will assume it to mean, "does it apply if they are the ones to make first contact?"

So let's post (yet again) the 52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals along with the 2 relevant sections.



(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.



Section (1) defines the illegality or unlawfulness of a foreign national to directly or indirectly present an offer or implied promise on that offer with respect to a Federal, State, or local election. (This would fall under the umbrella of them making first contact)

Section (2) defines how a US Citizen cannot solicit or make first contact with a foreign national or receive (stuff as defined in section 1 subparagraphs A or B (in this case we're talking a "thing of value") from a foreign national...including implied promise to deliver said "thing of value".

Basically covering both scenarios, either making first contact or receiving contact first.


I only ask, as it seems John McCain was first contacted about the dossier, he received a copy, and gave it to the FBI. So was he guilty of the same thing at the time?

I'm just having a hard time seeing the differences between usual "opposition research", and this. Is it the location involved? (Muh Russia?) Or is it that anyone who accepts opposition research from another party is guilty under this law you seem to be all up on? Remember, Trump is't likely the first person to have had a campaign where dirt was used on the other side. And if this is the case, then a MAJOR investigation should take place and pretty much all politicians who have used dirt in their campaign should be checked out to make sure they go it the way you seem to think it's acceptable.

I doubt you see the slippery slope this is about to be.
edit on 7-8-2018 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

Let's assume that is true. Comey removed classified information from proper storage and took it home with him after being terminated, unauthorized. That's as illegal as it gets. The fact that he redacted part of the memo says he knew what he had was classified.


depends on party affiliation, and or, Trump likability. (intent)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Did that really go over your head?


I've been doing this a long time (forums). About 20 years.

A contributing author can be anyone.

It is the contributing author's opinion and background that matters - - - not the publication that prints the article.

SOURCE - - ORIGINAL SOURCE

Yes, I know to look for that.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

So it did go over your head... Let me spell it out. Source ad homs are worthless and prove nothing. They are intellectually lazy. There are multiple sources that confirmed what the hill article said.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

I only ask, as it seems John McCain was first contacted about the dossier, he received a copy, and gave it to the FBI. So was he guilty of the same thing at the time?

He's not guilty for one reason, he immediately turned it over to the FBI, and told them he was contacted. That makes a world of difference.




I'm just having a hard time seeing the differences between usual "opposition research", and this.

Well, the glaring difference is the aforementioned. If you could show me the point at which anyone in the Trump Campaign team received an offer and then immediately followed-up by forwarding all relevant data to the FBI, then I will ABSOLUTELY change my stance and say there's no way the Trump campaign should be held accountable for this. All I ever recall hearing is "I love it!", so if there's more, I would love to see it.
edit on 7-8-2018 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Except McCain didn't turn it over until he had it in his hands. He may well have said "I love it" and sent someone to pick it up (we don't know because he didn't release his comms). Which is as far as Jr went but got nothing to turn over to the FBI.
edit on 7-8-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

There are multiple sources that confirmed what the hill article said.


POLITIFACT: What the law says about James Comey’s leaked memos

www.politifact.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

That also confirms what the hill article said.



posted on Aug, 7 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

That also confirms what the hill article said.


What it basically says is: "I don't know".

Same as I said before.

Law is interpretation.

IF (BIG IF) someone can justify charges. IF they can make them stick. Lawyers can duke it out in front of a judge.

Judge can weigh evidence and make a determination.

Until that happens -- it remains: "I don't know".



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join