Why Trump Jr didn't commit a crime

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: UKTruth

The funny thing is if he did violate this law and it was provable I would be all for upholding the law and seeing him prosecuted for it, however trying to make up definitions for words in a law on the fly, and trying to pick and choose when and how it applies to whom is a very slippery slope and way more dangerous of a precedent than any opposition Intel that could come from anyone... Literally anyone...Ever could be.

Totally agree.
Like I have said before, when a story breaks that liberals DON'T have to embellish, then there is a real case to be had.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Neither does this post.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

I am not getting carried away with propaganda.

All I am saying, is that whether a crime has been committed or not in this instance, has nothing to do with the facts, and everything to do with the fact that its one rule for one group of people, and another for the political class, and the super wealthy. Slightest immorality on the part of someone in the streets? Chaos, evidence of social decay, the collapse of society. Someone from a wealthy background colluding with foreign nationals in order to affect the outcome of an election by one means or another though, thats totally fine?

Seriously, does everything have to be about the struggle of the masses?
This was a simple meeting to gather opposition research. If an ordinary Joe Schmo had a meeting with this Russian lawyer to hear about Hillary Clinton, they would not be in trouble either.

Because a regular Joe Schmo isn't campaigning to be the leader of the free world....

The above isn't even a half-decent comparison and in fairness you're better than that.

A private citizen campaigning or not has the same rights as everyone else.
I assume you are not advocating for unequal application of the law, which seemed to be the reason for the complaint in the first place.

A private citizen is not under FECA. Again, you're better than that.

It's not even advocating, a regular Joe Schmo is not held to Fedaral Campaign Finance Legislation.

Don't turn this on me like I make the rules in the US.

It's not even comparable....

A private citizen IS under federal election campaign law.
Ask Dinesh D'Souza
www.justice.gov...
You're better than that - or are you?

D'Souza? When you donate (illegally) to a political campaign of course you come under FECA.

If you donate to your local animal shelter, you wouldn't....

This may be easier for you.

Someone in the private sector is allowed to be wined and dined by a company looking to make a bid on a project.
Someone in the public sector (I'll use Texas since that's where I'm at) is implicitly forbidden from doing the above.

Both are private citizens, both fall under different rules and regulations due to their positions.

D'Souza doesn't donate to a campaign, he never has to plead guilty to breaks campaign finance law. He can donate elsewhere and never come under campaign finance investigation. Easy enough?

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Yes easy enough - so we agree private citizens are subject to FECA. Thanks.

a reply to: UKTruth

Your wrong. It is illegal and Junior and Kushner are going to go to jail.

a reply to: allsee4eye

I don't.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Do you realize that you would first need to find value's definition in a legal sense by referencing similar cases of which I haven't found any yet. That battle alone won't be easy. Then you have the issue of no intent clause that means if nothing was exchanged, which is what it seems like, then you can't charge them with anything anyway. Basically this is such a shakey argument with no precedent to point to and not clearly defined within the law anyway that winning such a case is next to impossible when you realize the guy you want to convict actually has the means to mount a solid defense resource wise.

Basically putting any hope in this is foolish at best.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Sillyolme

Do you realize that you would first need to find value's definition in a legal sense by referencing similar cases of which I haven't found any yet. That battle alone won't be easy. Then you have the issue of no intent clause that means if nothing was exchanged, which is what it seems like, then you can't charge them with anything anyway. Basically this is such a shakey argument with no precedent to point to and not clearly defined within the law anyway that winning such a case is next to impossible when you realize the guy you want to convict actually has the means to mount a solid defense resource wise.

Basically putting any hope in this is foolish at best.

Stupid is as stupid does.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickyD

Once we discover what was exchanged we will assign a value.
We just haven't discovered what was exchanged yet. But I've no doubt there are more emails out there. Rhona anyone? Forwarded to....???Who?
I don't think anyone is actually buying the we didn't get anything line.
These people lie through their teeth.

But you sure do give them a run for their money when it comes to who can lie more though =P

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Yes easy enough - so we agree private citizens are subject to FECA. Thanks.

Hahaha fair enough. Not what was implied by Joe Schmo but sure.

I told you you were better than that.

a reply to: ConscienceZombie

Well when you trivialize it and leave out half the information you can make it sound that way but thats not what happened or the way it happened.

Suppose the lawyer walked up and handed DTJ evidence of Clinton's crimes.

He would be legally obligated to turn over the information, or else be charged with her.

If DTJ reasonably believed there was evidence of a crime, that supersedes any ancillary advantage he may incur.

The law is not that mysterious. Stop pretending. No one is forced to cover up crimes of their political opponent in any circumstance whatsoever.

I still want to hear the arguments that attempting to obtain evidence of criminal activity is somehow illegal because that evidence is coming from a foreign national. After all, the supposed information was that the Russian lady had evidence of the DNC receiving illegal foreign donations.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ConscienceZombie

Well when you trivialize it and leave out half the information you can make it sound that way but thats not what happened or the way it happened.

I would say leaving out half the information is a step up from your contribution (about 50% more).

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: allsee4eye

Waaaaait a second.

First of all, lets say someone tells me that a particular building contains an object that I want, or a person I want dead. If I rock up at that building ready to burglarise it, or armed and ready to commit murder, but the object or person in question is not there, I still left the house intent on theft/murder, and a crime therefore, has been committed. I went prepared in both cases, right?

So, no matter what the meeting was ACTUALLY about, if Trump Jnr. went to it, with the intention of getting hold of dirty data from a foreign source, then regardless of whether he actually got that information or not, surely he conspired to accumulate something of worth from a foreign national, which must also be a criminal offence?

hey, hey....this is logic free zone...you're upsetting the alt-right with that kind of talk.

Says who?
Who says they exchanged nothing?
No services no promises???
Trump? The Russians?

Why would we believe them again?

a reply to: jimmyx

Yet that isn't even close to comparable as far as analogies to, but if it makes you happy to look at it like that who am I to correct your outlook...You can be wrong all day I don't think it will amount to much though.

Trump Jr didn't know who he was meeting with. Natalia didn't know who she was meeting with. They were set up by Rod Goldstone. Rod Goldstone told Trump Jr the person he meets has info on Hillary. Rod Goldstone told Natalia to talk about adoption with the person she meets. Neither Trump Jr or Natalia communicated with each other prior to the meeting, so there cannot be a conspiracy. As for this law, Trump Jr didn't know anything about Natalia, much less she is a Russian national, so he could not have possibly been soliciting things of values from her.

a reply to: RickyD

Mens rea is in fact an article of law good buddy.

a reply to: RickyD

I didn't supply one so I don't know what you're talking about.