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

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.

If Natalia had damaging info on Hillary, she would have sent it to the MSM, not to Trump Jr. Hence, this was a hoax and nothing will come of it.

a reply to: allsee4eye

I'm going to attempt to keep track of the deflections in this thread.
I'm guessing the emails saying that there's information were pretend emails...

a reply to: Kali74

in just a few short months, or maybe longer knowing DC, we'll hear mueller utter the words his best buddy did,

"our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"

originally posted by: Kali74

...it may be best to let Jr. play with some more rope.

That's funny!

So 12 out of 17 vote nothing burger, is it?

But but but but but Ante's thread yesterday hailed this blurb as the gospel, the ultimate revelation that proves once and for all that Donald Trump is a treasonous capitalist swine, or something like that.



EDIT: I LaDooshed and only noticed the last sentence. I didn't notice this part:

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.

a reply to: Kali74

Let me see if I have this correct. Trump was running for president against Clinton. Someone contacted Trump's son and told him they had damaging information about Trump's opponent. (I am not sure if the crime occurred here or not) The meeting was scheduled and happened. Rather than receiving the damaging information, Trump Jr. stated that adoption laws were discussed. Since the woman in the meeting is from Russia, she is Obviously Putin's toy. (still not sure how that is true)

If any of that is incorrect, please let me know.

Knowing that these are the facts as given, is Trump Jr. Guilty of anything other than meeting with a woman under the pretext of finding dirt on Clinton?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Quite probably. But clearly what Jr., Kushner and Manafort did was wrong.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

I bet if I asked enough lawyers I could find 12 out of 17 to say whatever I wanted too. Especially if I owned a news network and could offer them spots as experts and all that.

But hey more props to the prosecutor who wants to try a flimsy case with no other cases to back up his argument.

a reply to: Kali74

We do know that federal law prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions (including things of value)

When they say "of value" they are talking about monetary value, right? Money, vacations, cars, etc.. yes? Does just information on the potential wrongdoings of a political opponent count? If you and I were in the same political race and I got dirt on you from a source, does that count? It would seem as if as long as it wasn't something like insider trading sort of thing, it's not illegal. They weren't given anything of monetary value and/or didn't stand to gain monetarily from the information.
Do I have this right? Somebody get me a lawyer.

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.

Seems like a whole lot of deflection from the fact that the Dems still in office have nothing positive in the works for the American people. All they have is petty drama like the story above. Let me know when Trump Jr. has been convicted with a crime. Until then, does the left have anything to offer in regards to policy and fixing the real issues we have in this country?

a reply to: Kali74

We do know that federal law prohibits the solicitation of campaign contributions (including things of value) from a foreign individual or entity.

I was reading up about this last night, and the literal statute is vague. But as I understand it, based upon legal precedents, banned contributions would be monetary or "in-kind" contributions... as in donating flyers for a campaign rally that the campaign would otherwise have had to pay for.

Foreigners are not totally banned from participating or being involved in a political campaign, however. For example, they can donate their time and labor. So I think it comes down to two things in the final anaysis: 1 -- Did Jr solicit the information? (It was offered) And 2 -- Did any talk of payment come up and/or did money change hands? (Not that anyone has claimed)

So I would say the emails prove nothing criminal -- or impeachable.

FEC: Foreign Nationals Brochure

Your gripping at straws. Hanging on by a finger tip. Sorry op. Your assumptions are flawed.

Welcome to the real world.

Isn't it filthy

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.

a reply to: Kali74

Oh crap, I just skimmed to the punchline where it said '5 thinks its damning'.

What obsession? I dont scream and howl in his threads. I actually enjoy him, as he's one of the few liberals anymore that is at least rather funny.

A world without humor is a dark and wicked place, indeed.

a reply to: Kali74

that maybe so but they weren't the ones that got elected POTUS. there have been and will be plenty of presidents that have had or will have people that do stupid, dishonest, or questionable things. if there is no proof that the POTUS knows of it then it's a mute thing.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That's funny!
So 12 out of 17 vote nothing burger, is it?

I realize that you think 'nothing burger' is uber-cute. Good for you! But if you read the frigging post you would (hopefully) have understood that 12 out of 17 believe the currently known evidence is conclusive of collusion/malfeasance/buggery on the high seas. Hardly a 'nothing burger'.

in the interests of transparency - it would be helpfull if the political affiliations of the 17 " experts " was known

i use the term " expert " deliberatly due to :

That is where I am not sufficiently familiar of the federal code to know what might fairly be charged

this is not a sleight at proffessor Joshua Dressler - merely the observation that they asked the opiinion of the wrong man - he [ dressler ] is a legal expert - but not in the correct feild of law for this matter

which begs the question - how many other legal experts did they ask - but got the " wrong " answer ?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

A lot of people seem to be confused as to what's possibly illegal about that meeting. The purpose of the thread is to discuss that, drawing from a base of legal experts.