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

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
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...

Yes literal evidence of opposition research. We've had literal evidence of Trump being inaugurated too.
What's your point?

a reply to: Kali74

I'm no legal expert, but have spent a few years of my life both writing up prosecutorial documents and defense documents for federal attorneys--the language that you cite seems to discuss monetary value. While information can be one of the most valuable things in the world, it is not considered a "campaign contribution" in the sense of this law.*

My two cents, anyhow, but I guarantee that ANY prosecutor will have an exceptionally difficult go at prosecuting under what you cite in your OP.

I will definitely say this, though: If anyone thinks that Clinton's campaign didn't seek out damning information on Trump's business dealings from foreign individuals or entities, they are living with blinders on. This is something that happens during every single election, and to my knowledge, it has never been a major issue until suddenly now.

The better question to ask is this (if you're really interested in justice): What is this damning information on Clinton, and should we be privy to it? Anyone who brings out damning information on a politician is okay in my book, barring very few tactics to do so.

* My relatively educated opinion, but again, I'm no expert.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes it would be interesting to see a Republican conduct the survey, and then a libertarian sort of bastard that pisses everybody off.

Yep - liberals keep using people from their echo chamber to try and back up their failed arguments. They still haven;t realised that it doesn't work anymore.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Having Jr. releasing them and go do an interview about it wouldn't help them in that scenario. Basically it would make them look as bad as the networks for pushing it without fact checking it. His lawyers probably advised him to release it to get ahead of the story before the media could spin it into something it isn't and never will be. Unfortunately for them the media is spinning it anyway as best they can, but if you look at the statues they claim it violates it doesn't really apply very well and I seriously doubt any lawyer is going to take a case like this to court against someone with the resources to actually defend themselves. There is absolutely no legal precedent to argue so you would have to go based on just your own merits and argument alone all while really really stretching the definition of value as defined in the statute. Oh and you'd need to make a judge see an intent clause where there isn't one to get anywhere because no exchange ever took place. That would be one Goliath effort of a prosecution IMO.

a reply to: Kali74

Information has value. It is illegal for a campaign to take anything of value from a foreign source.

Can you please link the code of conduct and compliance requirements to back up this statement because I am suspect that something not tangible constitutes 'of value'. I am subject to compliance and CoC policies and I am not allowed to accept gifts or anything else which can be seen as a bribe where both parties stand to make financial gain.

Seriously - lets see the compliance requirements from the GOP and US government pertaining to your assertion there.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this works. Does an exchange have to take place in order for the law to be broken? Any kind of exchange? Someone used an undercover cop acting as a hitman and taking money to perform a hit on someone. I get that the murder doesn't actually take place but when the person hires the hitman they are arrested. But if it were a drug deal and the undercover cop showed up without any drugs and said instead they had something else to sell would the person be charged for purchasing drugs for just showing up to buy drugs? Couldn't the person say they wouldn't have purchased drugs but took the meeting to see what the current price of drugs was? Is any meeting under the pretense of something illegal still illegal if what was discussed didn't happen at all?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
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.

I would like to engage this concept of "guilty by intent." This is an interesting argument because it's based on intent and intent alone. Do you mean intent in that he was willing to speak/meet with a "foreign agent" in order to get some damaging information on their opponent? What would he be guilty of? Treason? Collusion? You or anyone can answer this. I'll wait.

does anybody else get the feeling donald junior is just a sacrificial lamb here?
with the now obvious collusion someone had to get thrown under the bus so who better than the one that enjoys shooting endangered species.
trump supporters have shown their uber hypocrisy and/or no level intellect over the last couple of days switching from no russian collusion to we knew all along and were fine with it anyways at the behest of their acolyte so, the narrative could easily change again to trump junior being painted as an evil commie conspirator who must serve a little time.

So I'll just leave this here for you guys...I looked it over and saw nothing to apply here, also the word "value" isn't specifically defined here so you would have to establish a definition legally somewhere using other cases to base your definition on. I'm at work so I don't have the time to search for cases that may pertain, but if you wanted to attempt to make the argument that's where I'd start.

CFR 110.20 definitions

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

originally posted by: keenmachine
I'm trying to wrap my head around how this works. Does an exchange have to take place in order for the law to be broken? Any kind of exchange? Someone used an undercover cop acting as a hitman and taking money to perform a hit on someone. I get that the murder doesn't actually take place but when the person hires the hitman they are arrested. But if it were a drug deal and the undercover cop showed up without any drugs and said instead they had something else to sell would the person be charged for purchasing drugs for just showing up to buy drugs? Couldn't the person say they wouldn't have purchased drugs but took the meeting to see what the current price of drugs was? Is any meeting under the pretense of something illegal still illegal if what was discussed didn't happen at all?

In this case nothing. This wasn't a law enforcement sting operation. This was either of two things:

1) Bait and switch by this attorney in order for her to engage them with the Magnitsky Act

2) A set-up by FusionGPS on Trump, Jr. to concoct a Russian collusion connection based on him wanting to obtain information against Hillary Clinton. Remember, nothing was exchanged or said. Nothing.

Either way this meeting was based on a false premise. Even if he did obtain information, that is not illegal

Then it's being reported that this attorney has "ties to the Kremlin" which according to her is false. Trying to make it like she's connected with Russian intel and colluding with the Trump campaign - a false narrative. Then she's there in a picture 8 days after cold calling Trump with Obama's Russia Ambassador and with the same guy who set up the meeting in the first place. So, it look like there more evidence to the contrary.

originally posted by: growler
does anybody else get the feeling donald junior is just a sacrificial lamb here?
with the now obvious collusion someone had to get thrown under the bus so who better than the one that enjoys shooting endangered species.
trump supporters have shown their uber hypocrisy and/or no level intellect over the last couple of days switching from no russian collusion to we knew all along and were fine with it anyways at the behest of their acolyte so, the narrative could easily change again to trump junior being painted as an evil commie conspirator who must serve a little time.

No, it's a timed and intentional distraction from the real news which is that Comey potentially broke the law with possession and leaking of confidential FBI property.

originally posted by: RickyD
So I'll just leave this here for you guys...I looked it over and saw nothing to apply here, also the word "value" isn't specifically defined here so you would have to establish a definition legally somewhere using other cases to base your definition on. I'm at work so I don't have the time to search for cases that may pertain, but if you wanted to attempt to make the argument that's where I'd start.

CFR 110.20 definitions

It is written in 8th grade level english so you would think people would look it up.....but no they do not.
I work within CFR 40 60 and CFR 40 75 every day.
You are correct, as you posted yesterday, about the definitions section prior to each section. They won't listen as they will make up their own minds then be pissed when that does not work out.
What was done was wrong, but it was not illegal. I also think it does give some credibility to the whole "russia" bogeyman. I think jr was smart to release the email chain and give an interview. It at the least gives the appearance of transparancy. I also think this lady does not fit the description of an agent of the russian government. Should the entire trump campaign disclose all communications with russians or suspected russians? Should other campaigns have to do the same?
There are other nations that backed trump in the election, are all foreign contacts going to be looked at with the same microscope or is russia special?

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

Hmmm 17? That number sounds very familiar...

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: RickyD
So I'll just leave this here for you guys...I looked it over and saw nothing to apply here, also the word "value" isn't specifically defined here so you would have to establish a definition legally somewhere using other cases to base your definition on. I'm at work so I don't have the time to search for cases that may pertain, but if you wanted to attempt to make the argument that's where I'd start.

CFR 110.20 definitions

It is written in 8th grade level english so you would think people would look it up.....but no they do not.
I work within CFR 40 60 and CFR 40 75 every day.
You are correct, as you posted yesterday, about the definitions section prior to each section. They won't listen as they will make up their own minds then be pissed when that does not work out.
What was done was wrong, but it was not illegal. I also think it does give some credibility to the whole "russia" bogeyman. I think jr was smart to release the email chain and give an interview. It at the least gives the appearance of transparancy. I also think this lady does not fit the description of an agent of the russian government. Should the entire trump campaign disclose all communications with russians or suspected russians? Should other campaigns have to do the same?
There are other nations that backed trump in the election, are all foreign contacts going to be looked at with the same microscope or is russia special?

Wouldn't you say the "Steele Dossier" satisfy more criteria of wrongdoing than this event based on false premises, bait & switch and essentially nothing?

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

Hmmm 17? That number sounds very familiar...

It should... comes right after 16 and just before 18.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

Hmmm 17? That number sounds very familiar...

It should... comes right after 16 and just before 18.

Just like the 17 Intel agencies who said Russia hacked the election?

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

Hmmm 17? That number sounds very familiar...

It should... comes right after 16 and just before 18.

Just like the 17 Intel agencies who said Russia hacked the election?

What's your point? Russian hacking to influence the election has been confirmed and even addressed by Trump. Your vague comments make no sense so if you'd care to respond in complete sentences it might go a long way towards making yourself understood.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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.

What's funny is that all 17 concluded that there was impropriety... I do see where you replied and retracted the statements in this post but damn.... you're jumpy.

Hmmm 17? That number sounds very familiar...

It should... comes right after 16 and just before 18.

Just like the 17 Intel agencies who said Russia hacked the election?

What's your point? Russian hacking to influence the election has been confirmed and even addressed by Trump. Your vague comments make no sense so if you'd care to respond in complete sentences it might go a long way towards making yourself understood.

That it means nothing and it's misleading. One can find 17 others that say there's nothing wrong. It's the typical leftist consensus argument. It was never 17 intel agencies and all along it was completely wrong and the democrats and media knew it. It's not even conclusive that "russia hacked the election" and there no evidence whatsoever that whatever they did or attempted had any effect.

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

I would say the bigger problem with the "whole umbrella" here is that the laws are too vague and subject to interpretation, and therefore application, totally and completely undermining the spirit of common law and equal application. And I'm not sure that's not deliberate.

Intent would be everything as far the meeting goes...

Maybe... maybe not. Intent to do what? To get information of crimes committed by a presidential candidate and inform the public? While some might be more interested in the messenger, others will be more interested in the message -- and those who would keep the truth from the public. It's all too ambiguous and therefore too political.

...and monetary value doesn't need to be established.

You're right, no specific monetary value has to be established... but services can be donated no matter what their market value, so it's a moot point. The regs are so vague that it would have to be a judgment call. And I believe for it to be a violation it would have to be established that the services (in this case, information on Hillary, we'll even call it opposition research for the sake of this discussion) offered were from a company or individual offering that service professionally. So if a professional research opposition group offered the information for free, that would be an "in-kind" contribution. But if it's just some Joe Blow off the street (or Jane Blow) -- even a street in Moscow! -- that would not qualify.