Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rnaa

I didn't cut that off, the poster who originally posted it did. I'm amazed it took this long for someone to figure that out.

See here I simply played the cards I was dealt.

Again bovine feces.

I quoted the full text of the law and provided links in posts before alphabetaone joined the conversation, and his/her point was not addressing the campaign's solicitation angle.

The full text was available to you many times over. It is stupid and dishonest to make an assertion such as yours without verifying that what you say is actually true.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Information is speech not a "thing of value

If you truely believe that, I've got 100 bucks... will you go buy the entire Google operation for me? You can keep the change.

Cause you know, information is literally the only asset that Google has.

(Oh, your mistake, Google is currently valued at $527 Billion. Hmmm that is one heck of a lotta worthless information)

originally posted by: Dfairlite
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.

OK, lets go through this step by step.

1. "Russians" contacted the Trump Campaign with an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton. This violates 52 U.S. Code § 30121 Section 1 paragraph (a). (look up the uncountable links earlier in the thread if you need to).

2. In fact, the "Russians" were using the offer as a come-on to get the Campaigns attention so they could lobby against the Magnitsky act - activity which was, as they were not registered as foreign agents, in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 951 - Agents of foreign governments.

3. The offer got to DTJr who whooped in excitement, and roped in Paul Manafort, the Campaign Chair, and Jared Kushner, DTJr's brother-in-law, consultant to the Candidate, and head of the campaign's digital and social media section. The offer was not reported to the FBI or any law enforcement agency. This is a possible violation of 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

4. A meeting was set up, where the campaign had every intention of positively asking for, and receiving the 'dirt' mentioned in the original contact. This violates 52 U.S. Code § 30121 Section 2. The meeting itself is an action that is in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

5. In fact, the "Russian's" purpose for the meeting had nothing real to do with 'dirt' on Clinton. It was to discuss the Magnitsky Act, and to lobby for the lifting of the sanctions that act imposed on Russia for the Government sanctioned murder of Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.

6. After the meeting, the candidate gave a major speech directly and publically asking the Russian Government to intervene in the U.S. election system and steal material from the Department of State, the Democratic National Convention, and the Clinton Campaign computer systems.

7. In sworn testimony to Congress, DTJr would use the Russian retaliatory sanctions banning Americans from adopting Russian children as a cover for his dirt gathering scheme. DTJr then changed his story to admit that he was there to get dirt. DTJr's version of events changed several times from his sworn testimony. His Father wrote at least one of the 'official' releases made by DTJr.

8. The President tweeted again and again and again, each time changing the story about what he knew and what the consequences should be and just leave my poor son alone will you?

NOTICE that at NO POINT did ANYONE from the campaign turn around and say 'hey we are getting punked here, we need to report this stuff to the FBI.

NOTICE that McCain DID report it to the FBI.

NOTICE that there is no equivalence between what the Trump Campaign did (or rather, did not do) and what the McCain Campaign did.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Dfairlite
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.

OK, lets go through this step by step.

1. "Russians" contacted the Trump Campaign with an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton. This violates 52 U.S. Code § 30121 Section 1 paragraph (a). (look up the uncountable links earlier in the thread if you need to).

Does not apply to anyone at the meeting this is to prevent cash donations by foriegn nationals to election campaigns. However their are ways around this for example donations to pacs instead.

Or you can do like Hillary Clinton and set up a law firm to purchase information from a foreign national. But than we have the problem is its not a donation the campaign is paying money for a product perfectly legal.

2. In fact, the "Russians" were using the offer as a come-on to get the Campaigns attention so they could lobby against the Magnitsky act - activity which was, as they were not registered as foreign agents, in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 951 - Agents of foreign governments.

Not required for a campaign to check to see if a foreign national has registered with the atty general. In fact there isnt a method to do so other than write to the atty general asking.
Though it does appear the Obama administration gave her the right to be here.

3. The offer got to DTJr who whooped in excitement, and roped in Paul Manafort, the Campaign Chair, and Jared Kushner, DTJr's brother-in-law, consultant to the Candidate, and head of the campaign's digital and social media section. The offer was not reported to the FBI or any law enforcement agency. This is a possible violation of 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

This is funny your using a law requiring you to report a felony yet no felony was committed. A violation of campaign laws is not a felony. The previous laws you claim were violated are misdemeanors so whoever threw this out there is really reaching.

4. A meeting was set up, where the campaign had every intention of positively asking for, and receiving the 'dirt' mentioned in the original contact. This violates 52 U.S. Code § 30121 Section 2. The meeting itself is an action that is in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Recieving dirt on an opponent's is not illegal if it were we would have to arrest Hillary for purchasing dirt on her opponent. It is a campaigns job to show they are the better choice. This law refers to more acts of treason are you trying to claim treason?

5. In fact, the "Russian's" purpose for the meeting had nothing real to do with 'dirt' on Clinton. It was to discuss the Magnitsky Act, and to lobby for the lifting of the sanctions that act imposed on Russia for the Government sanctioned murder of Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.

True not sure of the point.

6. After the meeting, the candidate gave a major speech directly and publically asking the Russian Government to intervene in the U.S. election system and steal material from the Department of State, the Democratic National Convention, and the Clinton Campaign computer systems.

Did he now? Or did he say if the Russians have Hillary's emails they should release them?? Me thinks you didn't pay attention your implying he worked with the Russians any proof? Because unless you do Trump was just saying what many others were thinking at the time.

7. In sworn testimony to Congress, DTJr would use the Russian retaliatory sanctions banning Americans from adopting Russian children as a cover for his dirt gathering scheme. DTJr then changed his story to admit that he was there to get dirt. DTJr's version of events changed several times from his sworn testimony. His Father wrote at least one of the 'official' releases made by DTJr.

I actually agree with this and find it troubling that they were not honest from the beginning.

8. The President tweeted again and again and again, each time changing the story about what he knew and what the consequences should be and just leave my poor son alone will you?

NOTICE that at NO POINT did ANYONE from the campaign turn around and say 'hey we are getting punked here, we need to report this stuff to the FBI.

NOTICE that McCain DID report it to the FBI.

NOTICE that there is no equivalence between what the Trump Campaign did (or rather, did not do) and what the McCain Campaign did.

:



By tour standards the mccain camp violated the law but that's ok because your wrong. As far as hiding it that was their first response that can cause problems. However in this case the initial responses have been clarified we call it changed making it perfectly legal.

I know you hope to get Trump but nothing that happened is illegal if it were we would allready be in the middle of impeachment proceedings. All this was known over a year ago in fact part of this has been dismissed in a civil law suit over this meeting

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: network dude
So if Don Jr. would have contacted the FBI and told them some Russian bitch wasted his time, this would all be fine? take time to think about your answer.

Let me fix it for you so you can understand


So if Don Jr. had contacted the FBI and made them aware of a foreign national attempting to provide dirt on Hillary (which they are lawbound TO do, just like McCain had done), then Don Jr. would not be in legal jeopardy now.

how long is the time frame for turning in everything to the FBI as you seem to know all about this? Was McCain within this window? Did he turn in all his documents right away, or did he take them home and read them, as he stated?

McCain is a Republican, he's looking guilty, in the way you are interpreting that law. Unless you are just wrong.

a reply to: rnaa

So you're saying that google exceeded their campaign contributions to both candidates because they relayed information (a thing of value, according to you)? See, your willingness to be obtuse and pretend you don't understand that 'thing of value' is a legal term and not a catch all description is easily shown to be absurd. I have explained this countless times here in this thread. For some reason, many have a hard time understanding the difference in legal terminology and common description.

One more time: Information has value. Information is not a 'thing of value' in the case of this law. If it were, no campaign official could speak to any foreigner about their own candidate.

a reply to: rnaa

It's not BS. I linked right to it. Yes, I was aware of the point you finally highlighted, but if your opponent is going to make mistakes you should always capitalize on them. It's not my job to make your argument for you. Even if I'm better at it than you.

a reply to: rnaa

LMAO, you're mad I capitalized on alpha's mistake. Too bad, not apologizing. Does one come before two? Then yes, I was correct in saying that it comes later in the law.

YOU reposted the truncated text of the law and YOU specifically used that truncated text to claim that it didn't make the solicitation illegal. And YOU specifically used that truncated text to claim that the anti-solicitation part of the law is somewhere else in the U.S. code - and YOU never quoted that other law.

So? I reposted the exact information that alpha posted. I addressed it in the context he posted it in. I'm not sure why you are taking issue with my addressing the argument made with the evidence provided. When did it become my responsibility to assist my opponent in making their argument? Did I not concede that you were indeed correct that later on in that law it does outline the illegality of soliciting donations? Why yes, yes I did.

Oh I see, it's because you have no real argument that holds water pertaining to the meat of the law. So you want to distract with this meaningless drivel in an attempt to reduce my credibility. Sorry, not going to work.

a reply to: rnaa

Dragon's response is pretty much on par with what I would have told you except for point 7 and 8 and beyond. So let me give you my responses to those.

7. In sworn testimony to Congress, DTJr would use the Russian retaliatory sanctions banning Americans from adopting Russian children as a cover for his dirt gathering scheme. DTJr then changed his story to admit that he was there to get dirt. DTJr's version of events changed several times from his sworn testimony. His Father wrote at least one of the 'official' releases made by DTJr.

What evidence of dirt gathering do you have? Maybe I missed something but I've seen no evidence that any dirt was gathered at this meeting. So your characterization of it as a 'dirt gathering scheme' is at best misleading and at worst an insidious lie. The core of the story told by jr has been consistent. He went to the meeting to get dirt on hillary. He instead was met with lobbying for the removal of the magnitsky act. That's been his story since the day the news broke. That was his story in his testimony. That is still his story today. The statement written by Sr. was in response to the story breaking and it was not inaccurate. HOWEVER, trump did mislead on his involvement in drafting the statement. Why? IDK, but I see no reason that matters.

8. The President tweeted again and again and again, each time changing the story about what he knew and what the consequences should be and just leave my poor son alone will you?

Yes, he misled about his involvement in the drafting of the response. However, that's about the only misleading thing he did on this issue. The rest is spin. I choose to take the most innocent interpretation. Not saying you have to do that, just pointing out my reading of it. Everyone involved, including Trump Sr. has said that the premise of the meeting was dirt but the subject of it ended up being the magnitsky act. He may have obfuscated that at first but he later clarified and has gone with that ever since.

NOTICE that at NO POINT did ANYONE from the campaign turn around and say 'hey we are getting punked here, we need to report this stuff to the FBI.

I'm not sure why you think that matters. Do you report to the FBI every time someone dupes you into wasting your time?

NOTICE that McCain DID report it to the FBI.

McCain was given dirt. Had his time been wasted and the guy he sent to pick up the dossier was instead bought an ice cream cone, do you think mccain would have reported that to the FBI?

NOTICE that there is no equivalence between what the Trump Campaign did (or rather, did not do) and what the McCain Campaign did.

Correct, in one instance (McCain) the person got opposition research provided by a foreigner and he turned it over to the FBI. In the other instance (Jr) the person wasted their time hearing some complaints about a law. One of these things was worth reporting to the FBI, the other was not.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Does anyone here even understand who will decide if this event is in any way a "violation" of campaign law?
We discussed this here last summer.
It is not like the fbi will be breaking down jr's door at 3am.
www.fec.gov...

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is the independent regulatory agency charged with administering and enforcing the federal campaign finance law. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House, Senate, Presidency and the Vice Presidency.

perhaps some should look here...
www.fec.gov...

Advisory opinions are official Commission responses to questions about how federal campaign finance law applies to specific, factual situations.

The fec is the adjudicating body for suspected "campaign violations".
Most of the discussion about this event in this tread is moot.

Who else hears Trump's tweets in Colbert's Trump voice when you read them? And I visualize his little pointer-finger-to-the-thumb move that he loves to do.

Trump plainly lied. That much is true becuase his story has changed multiple times. If it's not illegal, then I don't see the point of him lying about the meeting in the first place. I mean, why not just tell the truth and be done with it?

A lot of you are twisting yourselves into knots trying to justify the lie and make it an aw shucks moment. We get it. You only hear the latest tweet and discard all of the rest. You don't need to keep posting over and over again. Just because you say something enough times doesn't make it true.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: soberbacchus

If he redacted it he knew it was classified.

If he knew it was classified, why didn't he return it to the FBI where it belonged?

Possessing classified information outside of its proper system is illegal.

You keep speaking in pretzel logic.

After redaction, it was no longer classified. He was not in possession of classified information.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: rnaa

Dragon's response is pretty much on par with what I would have told you except for point 7 and 8 and beyond. So let me give you my responses to those.

7. In sworn testimony to Congress, DTJr would use the Russian retaliatory sanctions banning Americans from adopting Russian children as a cover for his dirt gathering scheme. DTJr then changed his story to admit that he was there to get dirt. DTJr's version of events changed several times from his sworn testimony. His Father wrote at least one of the 'official' releases made by DTJr.

What evidence of dirt gathering do you have? Maybe I missed something but I've seen no evidence that any dirt was gathered at this meeting. So your characterization of it as a 'dirt gathering scheme' is at best misleading and at worst an insidious lie.

Again, your logic is inane.

Evidence that that someone was successful in a scheme or plan is not necessary to prove that some contrived a scheme or a plan.

An attempt to rob a bank does not need to succeed in order for someone to be charged with bank robbery.

That is how normal logic works.

There is no dispute from anyone, including the President of the United States, that this meeting was an effort to receive help from the Russian Government to benefit the Trump Presidential Campaign.

Whether that effort succeeded or not is not known, but there is no dispute from Trump sr. or jr. that was what Trump Jr. thought the purpose of the meeting was.

a reply to: soberbacchus

It's not pretzel logc at all. It's sad that I have to spell this out but here:

If he redacted it, was he in possession of classified information the moment before he redacted it? Furthermore, it's only contended that he gave one or two classified documents to his friend and those were the ones he redacted. The other two classified memo's stayed in his possession, unredacted.

He was no longer the FBI director and as such had no authority to share any official FBI documents with friends, redacted or not.

a reply to: icanteven

So politicians only lie about illegal activities? That's an interesting interpretation.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Your inability to understand logic doesn't make it inane.

Evidence that that someone was successful in a scheme or plan is not necessary to prove that some contrived a scheme or a plan.

Agreed. But that's not at all the point I made. The point I made was that there was nothing to take to the FBI as the meeting went nowhere and no dirt was obtained (as far as we know up to this point).

An attempt to rob a bank does not need to succeed in order for someone to be charged with bank robbery.

Attempted robbery is specifically a crime. But even that requires action. You can plan and meet about robbing a bank all day long but until you take concrete steps towards robbing the bank those meetings are not illegal. But none of this applies to the situation at hand nor the post which I was responding to.

That is how normal logic works.

You mean comparing dissimilar things? I can see why you think actual logic is inane.

As for the rest of your post; receiving opposition research is not illegal even from another government. Consider this: if hillary clinton obtained obama's birth certificate from indoneia, would that be illegal? How about if john podesta obtained a copy of the hacked emails that were about to be released by wikileaks, from russia? If so, why? If not, why not?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: icanteven

So politicians only lie about illegal activities? That's an interesting interpretation.

I'm not talking about all politicians. I'm posting about Trump.

Trump lied about the meeting. There's a record of his lies in his own words via his tweets.

Was the meeting illegal or not? There are good arguments pro and con. I'm not in charge, so I don't get the final say on the legality.

a reply to: icanteven

What did he lie about, about the meeting? Misleading, maybe a little but I'm not sure it ventured into the territory of a lie.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Wow... you're quick and loose with words.

icanteven literally said "Trump lied about the meeting" in their post, so why the question and incredulity?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
... I'm not sure it ventured into the territory of a lie.

He literally lied... on twitter, as has been pointed out and verified countless times. Misleading people by changing words to be inaccurate is literally lying.

... and all the other whoppers... "Speech can not be a "thing of value"... haha... comedy gold!

I don't really care, but why the diehard fanaticism with defending Trump? Why defend obviously stupid and dishonest statements?

Whether guilty/charged or not... whatever... it will be decided one way or another in time, after i'm sure lots of internal political maneuvering that we'll never be privy to.

But why not just call out his actions for what they are?

Stupid.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Actually I'm very precise with words and when I do get loose, I clear it up quickly.

and all the other whoppers... "Speech can not be a "thing of value"... haha... comedy gold!

That's very disingenuous and yes I've explained that about 5 times now. If you cared to read or learn you'd know that.

I don't really care, but why the diehard fanaticism with defending Trump

I'm not defending trump, I'm explaining the law.

Why defend obviously stupid and dishonest statements?

Because I am precise with language. I don't hamfistedly throw everything I disagree with into a single bin. There are lies, there is obfuscation, there are misleading statements, there are dishonest statements. Some statements belong in more than one category, others do not.

But why not just call out his actions for what they are?

I am. I said they were likely misleading, did I not? A lie is something that is said which is known to be false by the person saying it at the time. I don't think that fits the trump statement about the meeting. I think it's more along the lines of obfuscation or misleading. He didn't say anything that was actually false, he muddied the waters on what happened or counted on phrasing to make people draw incorrect conclusions. But if what he said wasn't false, it wasn't a lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong. I don't mind. No one has taken me up on that offer yet...