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

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That post was actually to me, Screechy.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
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.

It seems this is the entirety of the "Russian influence" narrative. How the knowledge of the meeting was acquired and the logistics of setting up the meeting might prove to be of much more interest than the meeting itself, but that may or may not become anything big.

I'm just glad that we can finally move on and laugh at the absurdity of the left's desperation.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Crimes were pointed to.

No they weren't.
Irrelevant nonsense was cited with no link to any crime.

The first butt hurt law professor claims no precedent... wrong. It goes downhill from there.

When you can point to any crime without having to pretend 'value' in a statute means information then try again to push the crime angle.

Information will always be treated as value but it's not considered value. Every politician. Everyone of them have traded favors for dirt so they can win.

There you go. Charge them all. If you feel Jr broke the law and our POTUS should pay the price? Then where is this outcry for all politicians, lawyers, teachers, doctors, businesses, athletes, and the rest of the humanity.

Your ignorance is astounding and reflects what is exactly wrong with the world we live in. Your point is mute.

a reply to: Boadicea

One of the major problems with the whole umbrella here is that there's been so many undisclosed contacts and meetings. The special investigation is only about 20% done according to Mueller.

Intent would be everything as far the meeting goes and monetary value doesn't need to be established.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Crimes were pointed to.

No they weren't.
Irrelevant nonsense was cited with no link to any crime.

The first butt hurt law professor claims no precedent... wrong. It goes downhill from there.

When you can point to any crime without having to pretend 'value' in a statute means information then try again to push the crime angle.

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

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

Well, then start locking up the proven ones, Hillary and friends. She may have lost, but that doesn't make her financing right.
Maybe you should make a topic about that! Then you can add actual prove for a change.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

No set value has to be assigned.

Wait, wait, wait.

Didn't your OP include the phrase, "(including things of value) ," in the excerpt?

And now you're saying it need not have any particular value?

How does that work?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

No set value has to be assigned.

Wait, wait, wait.

Didn't your OP include the phrase, "(including things of value) ," in the excerpt?

And now you're saying it need not have any particular value?

How does that work?

It's a liberal rule - extend what a law means when required and then restrict what it means when required - all depending on who you are trying to hang or defend.

www.infowars.com...

Jon Turley says it is nonsense, and I agree.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Crimes were pointed to.

No they weren't.
Irrelevant nonsense was cited with no link to any crime.

The first butt hurt law professor claims no precedent... wrong. It goes downhill from there.

When you can point to any crime without having to pretend 'value' in a statute means information then try again to push the crime angle.

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

Yeah - we got the deluded view from you a few times.
Still makes it nothing more than drivel no matter how many times you push that nonsense.

a reply to: Kali74

I went through this yesterday a bunch of times and it seems to fall on deaf ears for most. To define value you need to look up what it says in the statute you're referencing to charge him with and see how it is defined there...You can't use the Webster's dictionary for legal definitions. Also I don't remember reading any intent clause in said statute yesterday either so you'd have a pretty hard time getting a conviction on something you don't have a way to charge them for. No matter though you keep on regurgitating what you see on the boobtube...They'd never mislead you

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: UKTruth

Crimes were pointed to.

No they weren't.
Irrelevant nonsense was cited with no link to any crime.

The first butt hurt law professor claims no precedent... wrong. It goes downhill from there.

When you can point to any crime without having to pretend 'value' in a statute means information then try again to push the crime angle.

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

That's a pretty misleading way of writing that...It only covers things of value.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Glad I wasn't the only one to catch that. Seems a lot of people are trying to speak about this as if they're an authority...Yet don't have much if any legal experience or knowledge.

a reply to: allsee4eye

What?!?!
So your defense gmhas changed from.

"Trump and his team would never do that.. "

To

" well they tried to collude with Russia but they failed!"


Lol..

Literally evidence comes out released by trump jr. himself and still people think it is a hoax...

Lmfao...

a reply to: network dude

On the surface you are correct in your assessment of what all, according to Trump Jr, happened.

However, what this shows is far more damaging, and that is intent. He stated he showed up, while his father was in the middle of a campaign, and he was working on said campaign, to get damaging information on Clinton. Even though he did not get said information, that we know of, the fact he agreed to and showed up to, that is what is damming, for now anything else that comes out about him and the election, if it is shady, shows that he had the intention to and was willing to accept things on part of the election, even if it was against the law.

a reply to: Kali74


This is only the first of a few "pin drop" Moments.....That is a fact. Russia stating they support trump and his campaign....with that being said, the only reason trump Jr, even released those screenshots, is because the NY Times was going to publish them!!!

a reply to: kurthall

I don't much care where info about corrupt/criminal activity about our politicians comes from...As long as it's truthful. It could come from lil Kimmy himself for all I care. If it exposes more of what's wrong in DC by all means bring it...Does it matter more to you where it comes from rather than the message carried?

originally posted by: Kali74

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.

Well Donald Jr already shot himself in the head before someone else shot him, so I guess it's just a matter of time.
It's possible too that the young lady lawyer might turn out much closer to Putin than she has said, she is already close to people close to Putin. Then there is this Goldstone promotor guy from the UK, there is no doubt that there is a flurry of activity in the UK intel to find out more about him...if they haven't already done so that is.
There is also Donald Jr's performance on FOX news that was anything but convincing.

We need to be very carefully here on this. While it may be true, but part of me thinks that this very well may be a hoax and done on purpose.

It has been done before, and with Trump, has been done often, even by his own mouth and knowledge. Here is why I am saying that this has been a hoax.

The year was 2004, and a document came out about George W Bush, being very critical and damming to him. It looked real, there was no verification of the document and then CBS news released it, and reported on it, and it got all sorts of news coverage, and Dan Rather got the congrats for this scoop. And then the rug was pulled, the curtain pulled back and finally it all came tumbling down. The document, the Killian documents were all fake, and Dan Rather, being the first new anchors to fall cause of this.

So I would say there needs to be verification of this, that this is the real set of emails and that it is true, rather than something fake that the Trump Administration put out, only to turn around and show that it was fake and all of those claiming this would look bad, and prove to the public that the media is indeed showing fake news.