Why Trump Jr didn't commit a crime

a reply to: ConscienceZombie

Try the rant forum.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

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

If Hillary didnt get busted, neither will these bozos.


Unless you want to admit HRC has a buffer of protection from the laws of the land.

Donation.

Donation. For purposes of part 300, donation means a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person, but does not include contributions. 
For purposes of part 300,donationmeans a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person, but does not include contributions.

Source

11 CFR § 300.2

Scoping language

None

The Op is correct in some aspects of his view.

Yes it is illegal for a campaign to seek tangible aid from a foreign country in an election.
However, if you look at the past presidential elections, when a person runs for office, all of his children and immediate family are usually a part of said campaign, including appearing with and or acting on behalf of the person running for office. And Trumps children did indeed do such, they appeared with, and acting on behalf of the person running for office.

And from the get go, it was apparent not only that his children were not only part of the campaign, but also were going to get positions in the new administration.

Now here is the problem and where it will play badly. We do not know what information he may or may not have gotten from the meetings with the Russian lawyer. I do not believe that they merely talked about the adoption policy, a policy that was signed into law by Putin and probably not going to change any time soon. And the question now is why would a person like Trump Jr, be interested in adopting a child or any child, when he is married and has 5 children already.

While initially one would say that no crime was committed, however, it is a bit more complex. The emails are damming, and right now personally I am waiting on verification that they are the real article and not a hoax put out there to fuel the flames. But they do state that there is enough evidence to show that a meeting was set up and attended for the sole purpose of getting information on Hillary Clinton, in an election.

So we do not know what information was suppose to be passed, or gathered, and at the very least, what this shows is intent on the part of Donald Trump Jr’s part, and that is where it comes to be bad. You see if there is intent shown already, then anything else along this line, could not be easily dismissed as innocent.

And one of the first problems that is showing up, is that it appears as though Trump Jr, lied on his security clearance forms, omitting information, when clearly he knew about them. Now it is no longer just a slip of the memory as this one thing looks like he did it on purpose.

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.

Someone just pointed it out, but it's immaterial if Trump Jr. didn't know who he was meeting with or the topic of the meeting. It's not just any meeting and email exchange. The chain of events was started by an acquaintance of Jr.'s who said he knows an attorney highly connected to Russian officials, and she has some damaging intel on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. then shared his affection for the invitation to meet.

If criminal charges get filed, Trump Jr. will fail the mens rea test by his own admission. Mens rea means "the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused." It doesn't get any more cut and dry than a Russian-government-connected figure promising to give damaging information to an eager Trump Jr.

27th July folks. Get comfy because heads will explode. Damn i like this game of next level chess.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Youre kind of admitting that HRC has some legit criminal history that the Russians have to hand over to someone else.

To get Kushy and Junior in trouble in the slightest, there would need to be actual ammo on HRC for this to be anything.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Hillary didn't break the law unless careless is more than just Comeys public indictment.
So .....
Psst..that why trump didn't assign his special prosecutor to investigate her...
All blow.
She didn't commit any crimes. I don't care what you think about it. Facts are fact. She's not on trial or in jail.
She's a free woman.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.

Someone just pointed it out, but it's immaterial if Trump Jr. didn't know who he was meeting with or the topic of the meeting. It's not just any meeting and email exchange. The chain of events was started by an acquaintance of Jr.'s who said he knows an attorney highly connected to Russian officials, and she has some damaging intel on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. then shared his affection for the invitation to meet.

If criminal charges get filed, Trump Jr. will fail the mens rea test by his own admission. Mens rea means "the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused." It doesn't get any more cut and dry than a Russian-government-connected figure promising to give damaging information to an eager Trump Jr.

There is a difference. First, there's no crime. Second, the entire meeting was under false pretenses.

Now, I don't expect an honest answer but:

If he willingly solicited information to damage Hillary through a foreign national whose sources openly admit are Russian intel and other Kremlin associates - would he be guilty of something such as treason or collusion?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Ummm he's not looking to adopt a child.

a reply to: Sillyolme

After looking at more sections of CFR that pertain it appears the language used does not in my opinion support information being covered by the "of value" portion. This would be covered here if it was. You are correct, however about mens rea though and I learned a new legal term today so thanks for that.

Edit: also mens rea wouldn't apply here as there is no statute for attempted violation of the CFR statute. Took me a sec to put it together in my mind but alas it makes sense to me.


Edit again: Have you ever seen any other campaign disclose opposition Intel from anyone not a US citizen ever before this? That should be a good tell to see if it is even covered by the CFR statutes. If it hasn't...And I've never heard of it happening, then that would indeed set precedence against your side of this argument.

a reply to: RickyD

Correct, this "meeting" as has nothing to do with campaign contributions.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Ummm he's not looking to adopt a child.

So he has to want an abortion if he met with a pro-abortion activist as well?

a reply to: Butterfinger

No I'm not. Get your head screwed on straight.
Hillary was fully investigated. Eleven times all together.
No charges were ever brought against her. No trial no grand jury no charges nothing.
She's a free woman with no threats hanging over her head.
What are you missing that you think some revisionist history is going to change that?

a reply to: TrueBrit

There was no crime. At all.

You are obviously not a lawyer.

I will go wiith an actual lawyer's opinion - a liberal democrat lawyer nonetheless.

Liberal Legal Scholar Scoffs At Claims Donald Trump Jr. Guilty Of Treason

Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley laid to rest many of the claims Tuesday from the media and politicos of illegality and collusion surrounding Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a “Kremlin-connected” lawyer.

Turley, a legal scholar at George Washington University, batted away claims of criminality, asking “does any of this constitute a clear crime or even a vague inkblot image of a crime?” His answer: no, not on the facts.

dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: allsee4eye
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.

Someone just pointed it out, but it's immaterial if Trump Jr. didn't know who he was meeting with or the topic of the meeting. It's not just any meeting and email exchange. The chain of events was started by an acquaintance of Jr.'s who said he knows an attorney highly connected to Russian officials, and she has some damaging intel on Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. then shared his affection for the invitation to meet.

If criminal charges get filed, Trump Jr. will fail the mens rea test by his own admission. Mens rea means "the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused." It doesn't get any more cut and dry than a Russian-government-connected figure promising to give damaging information to an eager Trump Jr.

There is a difference. First, there's no crime. Second, the entire meeting was under false pretenses.

Now, I don't expect an honest answer but:

If he willingly solicited information to damage Hillary through a foreign national whose sources openly admit are Russian intel and other Kremlin associates - would he be guilty of something such as treason or collusion?

In my post, I said if THERE IS A CRIME then this email exchange gives insight into Trump Jr.'s mind. Any prosecutor worth his salt would bring in the email as part of a case. That's the whole idea of mens rea. In other words, an email or a meeting may not be a criminal act unto itself, and thank goodness for that. But an action taken -- in this case, the action is enthusiastically agreeing to meet to learn damaging intelligence provided from a figure connected to the Russian government -- the email becomes part of the record of an overall conspiracy.

There is a special prosecutor looking into this. It's yet to be seen if charges will get filed. But if charges do get filed, Trump Jr. just screwed the pooch with his "transparency".

So the answer to your question is "sort of". If a charge is made against the Trump campaign, then Trump Jr. could be charged as part of the conspiracy due his corrupt state of mind (as proven in black and white in email).

a reply to: mkultra11

The meeting was to exchange information and promise action later. What false pretenses?
Please... the intent is crystal clear. Not that I believe it but it doesn't matter if they claim they got nothing. They sure intended to get something.
Personally I think the meeting produced exactly what they had hoped for.

There had to be emails following up this meeting.

Where are the emails saying WTF? Where are the emails saying HEY your Russian buddy didn't deliver the goods? Where is the email questioning the source or asking what went wrong?
If they existed (like the tapes supporting trumps version of certain conversations) we would already have them. We don't. Because there are no emails showing this. There is no email saying what the hell happened and you just know there would be. These guys didn't take a meeting get nothing and just say oh well guess goldstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Show me where there is a promise of action later...

a reply to: RickyD

Glad to hear it councillor.
In your opinion. Haha.
Armchair attorneys.

The only opinion on this that matters is Rob Muellers opinion.

I'm betting he's all over this like white on rice.

a reply to: mkultra11

Are you ok?