Why Trump Jr didn't commit a crime

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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 Gladstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

This is a great point. If there were emails that would validate Trump Jr.'s story -- that the meeting was a let down -- then his story would be more believable. Right now, the only hard evidence that we have is an email chain where he enthusiastically jumps at the chance to get damaging intel (the time between emails and replies is often only 2-10 minutes).

a reply to: mkultra11

Read the friggin post I replied to genius.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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 Gladstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

This is a great point. If there were emails that would validate Trump Jr.'s story -- that the meeting was a let down -- then his story would be more believable. Right now, the only hard evidence that we have is an email chain where he enthusiastically jumps at the chance to get damaging intel (the time between emails and replies is often only 2-10 minutes).

which means you have no hard evidence that anything of note was exchanged.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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 Gladstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

This is a great point. If there were emails that would validate Trump Jr.'s story -- that the meeting was a let down -- then his story would be more believable. Right now, the only hard evidence that we have is an email chain where he enthusiastically jumps at the chance to get damaging intel (the time between emails and replies is often only 2-10 minutes).

which means you have no hard evidence that anything of note was exchanged.

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

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?

What if someone tells me that they have dirt on you that you are cheating on your wife is that a crime? Why do you associate information about a non-criminal act, though dirty, with a physical criminal act that you would want to personally commit once you got the information. Your spin doesn't fit or make sense...

, surely he conspired to accumulate something of worth from a foreign national, which must also be a criminal offence?

Well 2 Harvard law professors have stated it is not...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Just because one isn't an attorney doesn't mean they are completely unable to figure out legal matters. Just because I'm not a mechanic does that mean I couldn't figure out how to fix a vehicle? I am trying to have an intelligent debate here and get to the bottom of this...If that post is all you've got then don't bother to keep replying as you aren't worthy of an intelligent debate.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

There are opinions all over the place in the legal community. All just as valid from their education and career prospectives.
Guess we'll wait to see .
Mueller has a special tool he can use.
It's called a subpoena.
He doesn't have to guess at the subsequent emails. He just has to tell them hand them over.
And he will.

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.

You are missing a key element - it's quite an important one. There was no crime. So having knowledge of no crime being committed is hardly earth shattering, or are you still on Tim 'nice but dim' Kaine's crazy horse where he is frothing at the mouth about treason.

You guys set yourself up for fall all by yourselves, embracing speculation for your echo chamber kicks at the cost of utter humiliation later on....time and time again.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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 Gladstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

This is a great point. If there were emails that would validate Trump Jr.'s story -- that the meeting was a let down -- then his story would be more believable. Right now, the only hard evidence that we have is an email chain where he enthusiastically jumps at the chance to get damaging intel (the time between emails and replies is often only 2-10 minutes).

which means you have no hard evidence that anything of note was exchanged.

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

FEELZ vs evidence. I stick to evidence.

originally posted by: icanteven

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

What is to believe or not to believe here? Trump Jr. was told that a person had info on criminal/dirty deals that Hillary had been doing... It seems the other person was told a different story for the meeting that had nothing to do with Hillary. When they finally met after a few minutes they realized they both were duped, as to why who knows..

What more is there to see in all this? Why would it be wrong to get factual information on what would have been criminal actions? This all seems like the discovery is worst than the action discovered. Like the DNC emails, it wasn't important that they were true and correct, the left spin was that the discovery was the worst part... In both cases the left makes the bad dealings information as OK, but it should never been discovered in the first place, and is the actual criminal act.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

You are missing a key element - it's quite an important one. There was no crime. So having knowledge of no crime being committed is hardly earth shattering, or are you still on Tim 'nice but dim' Kaine's crazy horse where he is frothing at the mouth about treason.

You guys set yourself up for fall all by yourselves, embracing speculation for your echo chamber kicks at the cost of utter humiliation later on....time and time again.

How do you know there wasn't a crime? What makes you so sure?

I don't share your certainty. Trump doesn't behave as an innocent man would. But we'll have to agree to disagree until the Mueller decides to charge someone with a crime or not. My posts were about the state of mind of Trump Jr. It damages his case if charges are brought.

A lot of people on ATS believe Trump is playing a big, manipulative game. And for some reason, they believe this game somehow is good for the country or themselves. Why, Trump is outsmarting everyone! What a hollow, disappointing human being he is if it's all a big con.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

What is to believe or not to believe here? Trump Jr. was told that a person had info on criminal/dirty deals that Hillary had been doing... It seems the other person was told a different story for the meeting that had nothing to do with Hillary. When they finally met after a few minutes they realized they both were duped, as to why who knows..

What more is there to see in all this? Why would it be wrong to get factual information on what would have been criminal actions? This all seems like the discovery is worst than the action discovered. Like the DNC emails, it wasn't important that they were true and correct, it spin was that the discovery was the worst part... In both cases the left makes the bad dealings information as OK, but it should never be discovered in the first place.

Ah, so you do have some hard evidence that backs up Trump Jr's story? By all means, please do post it. I would love to see it since the only thing we have to go by is the email thread. Some great evidence would be a follow up email that describes this useless meeting and what was discussed.

The interview with Trump Jr. on Hannity is just hearsay. Of course he's going to say he was innocent.

The only position I'm arguing is about Trump Jr's state of mind, and the only evidence we have of that is the email exchange.

a reply to: RickyD

The conversation about adoptions is a quid pro quo situation. We'll do this. Release this info about Hillary Later you lift sanctions.
I guess you think Russia would just volunteer do do this and get nothing in exchange?


Why is trump so reluctant to be tough on Russia when it's been proven they messed in the election? Because they have dirt on him . Because they know that he knows they helped him. Why is he trying so hard to get sanctions lifted when the rest of his party want to strengthen them? Why does it appear like he's afraid of Putin. He has no problem cutting down any other world leader including the pope for God's sake but he can't speak a disparaging word about Putin. He can act tough with Australia or Canada or Mexico but not Russia?
He can elbow people out of his way to get in front but can't confront the country that hacked our election process? Why?

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

What is to believe or not to believe here? Trump Jr. was told that a person had info on criminal/dirty deals that Hillary had been doing... It seems the other person was told a different story for the meeting that had nothing to do with Hillary. When they finally met after a few minutes they realized they both were duped, as to why who knows..

What more is there to see in all this? Why would it be wrong to get factual information on what would have been criminal actions? This all seems like the discovery is worst than the action discovered. Like the DNC emails, it wasn't important that they were true and correct, it spin was that the discovery was the worst part... In both cases the left makes the bad dealings information as OK, but it should never be discovered in the first place.

Ah, so you do have some hard evidence that backs up Trump Jr's story? By all means, please do post it. I would love to see it since the only thing we have to go by is the email thread. Some great evidence would be a follow up email that describes this useless meeting and what was discussed.

The interview with Trump Jr. on Hannity is just hearsay. Of course he's going to say he was innocent.

The only position I'm arguing is about Trump Jr's state of mind, and the only evidence we have of that is the email exchange.

No hard evidence is required for an assumption of innocence.
The burden of proof is on you if you want to convince someone who does not share your belief that a crime was committed.

a reply to: UKTruth

No we have no evidence that the meeting was a bust.
I think if the exculpatory emails existed their attorney would say release those too so people can see that you got nothing.
But like the tapes that support trumps version of certain conversations...they don't exist.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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 Gladstone was mistaken... not in this lifetime...

This is a great point. If there were emails that would validate Trump Jr.'s story -- that the meeting was a let down -- then his story would be more believable. Right now, the only hard evidence that we have is an email chain where he enthusiastically jumps at the chance to get damaging intel (the time between emails and replies is often only 2-10 minutes).

which means you have no hard evidence that anything of note was exchanged.

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

And the question would be why? Why believe them when they haven't given anyone a reason to trust them.
But they do. I don't get it. Such blind loyalty.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Except it seems both parties of the supposed convo were mislead and the actual Convo didn't really happen as soon as they realized they were both there for something the other thought was different. You're really stretching reality and making a lot of assumptions about all of this. You're also doing it with a very clear bias.

a reply to: RickyD

So are you believing what junior tells you. Apple's and trees honey . Apple's and trees...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: allsee4eye

Waaaaait a second.

First of all, let's 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?

Yeah... but consider your bias.

You are probably someone who thinks a murder labeled as a "hate crime" is different than a "regular murder".

Lots of folks believe thought crimes are a "thing".

Whether this is even an issue will depend on what the current power structure wants to trot out as a definition of "a thing of value." What will be problematic... is the implications of how this is defined by the very people trying to hurt Trump, and how it impacts on THEIR political futures.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

I have seen the same email as you. The difference is, I don't believe Trump Jr.'s story and you do.

What is to believe or not to believe here? Trump Jr. was told that a person had info on criminal/dirty deals that Hillary had been doing... It seems the other person was told a different story for the meeting that had nothing to do with Hillary. When they finally met after a few minutes they realized they both were duped, as to why who knows..

What more is there to see in all this? Why would it be wrong to get factual information on what would have been criminal actions? This all seems like the discovery is worst than the action discovered. Like the DNC emails, it wasn't important that they were true and correct, it spin was that the discovery was the worst part... In both cases the left makes the bad dealings information as OK, but it should never be discovered in the first place.

Ah, so you do have some hard evidence that backs up Trump Jr's story? By all means, please do post it. I would love to see it since the only thing we have to go by is the email thread. Some great evidence would be a follow up email that describes this useless meeting and what was discussed.

The interview with Trump Jr. on Hannity is just hearsay. Of course he's going to say he was innocent.

The only position I'm arguing is about Trump Jr's state of mind, and the only evidence we have of that is the email exchange.

No hard evidence is required for an assumption of innocence.
The burden of proof is on you if you want to convince someone who does not share your belief that a crime was committed.

I don't know if a crime was committed, nor do you. There is an investigation, though. At the end of all this, we will both know. If there is no crime, then Trump Jr. and the whole circus will be vindicated. If the investigation results in charges being filed against Trump, then Trump Jr.'s email shows a corrupt state of mind.

That's what I'm discussing: What may come next. I don't really care what you think about guilt or innocence. I'm seeing where the trail leads. Based on where the trail leads, the email will either sink or become part of a larger case.

That's it. It's all we know. We can try to anticipate moves of the individual players, but you nor I don't have some kind of inside track to the proceedings. Well, you might, but I sure don't.