Why Trump Jr didn't commit a crime

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Sillyolme

No the emails are not hearsay. The emails are hard evidence. They can be sourced.

Hard evidence of what? That he would love to see credible evidence on Hillary's dirty dealings? Am I missing something here? I think we can all agree on the emails, what more is there after that? As I said before, Trump Jr, 10,000 news people and millions of Americans would all love to see such evidence, don't you think?

Maybe I should have referred to the Trump Jr. email thread as an artifact. As an artifact, it is tangible. It may or may not have value to the prosecution should charges be brought up against the Trump campaign.

Unless there is a primary artifact that proves that the meeting was a bust (it could be an email, text, whatever), then all we have to go on is what Trump Jr. says. Otherwise, the only fact we have (from the email thread) is that Trump Jr. enthusiastically jumped at the chance to meet w/ a figure with ties to the Russian government who is said to have damaging information about the Clinton campaign.

originally posted by: icanteven

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.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm now that if Trump farts or anyone associated with him farts an investigation is quickly convened?

We just going to blindly fish for the next four years?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

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.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm now that if Trump farts or anyone associated with him farts an investigation is quickly convened?

We just going to blindly fish for the next four years?

Unfortunately, we all have to sniff Trump's farts, except that he calls them his Tweets.

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: icanteven

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).

However, what Trump Jr. did was not against the law. His intention of obtaining damaging political information is not against the law. The entire meeting in itself raises more questions to the contrary. Such as her connection to FusionGPS and her association with Obama's Russia diplomat, seen with 8 days after trying to arrange the meeting.

Then onto FusionGPS, the Democratic opposition research firm and the debunked and unverified "Steele Dossier", which was solicited by Never Trumpers and Hillary supporting Democrats (bolstered by Hillary herself planting the collusion narrative in the debates) to bolster a false narrative for opposition research. Comey also used the dossier as a "roadmap" the FBI investigation. Steele openly admitted that his sources for the Dossier contain:

"a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure”
“a former top level intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin”
"a senior Kremlin official”
“senior Russian government official.”

Here we have admitted sources from the Kremlin itself and Russian intel whom have provided "info" to Steele for his dossier, used by the Hillary campaign to damage Trump, the media and the FBI (as a road map). So who is colluding with Russian with full solicitation and intent to damage another political candidate. Who is doing Russia intel's bidding and trying to subvert our democracy. Our own FBI actually used Russian intel to investigate a duly elected president.

If Trump's team did any of the above it would be an entirely different story. So we are led to believe this little Trump Jr. meeting with this attorney is somehow proof of collusion mens rea? A legal joke.

It sounds like you have it all figured out. There's no need to discuss. Could you please share your theory with Mueller so he can get on with closing down the investigation? We're all pretty sick of hearing about politics day in and day out, so this would be a good deed by you.

Yeah, go ahead and patronize me because I'm right.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: icanteven

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).

However, what Trump Jr. did was not against the law. His intention of obtaining damaging political information is not against the law. The entire meeting in itself raises more questions to the contrary. Such as her connection to FusionGPS and her association with Obama's Russia diplomat, seen with 8 days after trying to arrange the meeting.

Then onto FusionGPS, the Democratic opposition research firm and the debunked and unverified "Steele Dossier", which was solicited by Never Trumpers and Hillary supporting Democrats (bolstered by Hillary herself planting the collusion narrative in the debates) to bolster a false narrative for opposition research. Comey also used the dossier as a "roadmap" the FBI investigation. Steele openly admitted that his sources for the Dossier contain:

"a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure”
“a former top level intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin”
"a senior Kremlin official”
“senior Russian government official.”

Here we have admitted sources from the Kremlin itself and Russian intel whom have provided "info" to Steele for his dossier, used by the Hillary campaign to damage Trump, the media and the FBI (as a road map). So who is colluding with Russian with full solicitation and intent to damage another political candidate. Who is doing Russia intel's bidding and trying to subvert our democracy. Our own FBI actually used Russian intel to investigate a duly elected president.

If Trump's team did any of the above it would be an entirely different story. So we are led to believe this little Trump Jr. meeting with this attorney is somehow proof of collusion mens rea? A legal joke.

It sounds like you have it all figured out. There's no need to discuss. Could you please share your theory with Mueller so he can get on with closing down the investigation? We're all pretty sick of hearing about politics day in and day out, so this would be a good deed by you.

Yeah, go ahead and patronize me because I'm right.

That's what I'm doing. I'm glad you have all of this figured out. I really am.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

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.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm now that if Trump farts or anyone associated with him farts an investigation is quickly convened?

We just going to blindly fish for the next four years?

It's a colossal waste of tax payer's money and FBI resources. Promoting this narrative is damaging our democracy and political discourse. It's a disservice to the American people, hate or love Trump. Trump is right, it's a political witch hunt, a coup being performed by this so called "deep state" Obama holdovers, democrat propaganda media and establishment politicians aka the swamp.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: icanteven

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.

Doesn't it seem to be the norm now that if Trump farts or anyone associated with him farts an investigation is quickly convened?

We just going to blindly fish for the next four years?

It's a colossal waste of tax payer's money and FBI resources. Promoting this narrative is damaging our democracy and political discourse. It's a disservice to the American people, hate or love Trump. Trump is right, it's a political witch hunt, a coup being performed by this so called "deep state" Obama holdovers, democrat propaganda media and establishment politicians aka the swamp.

Witchhunt? the Trump family brought this all down upon themselves by dealing with the Commies and then lying about it. Make no mistake Putin is a communist.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Give me a break. Ask me stupid questions that have no answers and then say see you have no answers.

Where would I get court information for this? Where would I go to see who was charged for this?
I have an idea. You find a case that's similar where they were acquitted and present that.
Should be a piece of cake right?

a reply to: mkultra11

But it is against the law to get this from a foreign government.

a reply to: RickyD

Says who?

a reply to: Sillyolme

I did actually research this.
No precedent
It is actually funny you think those are stupid questions. It is also funny you cant research this yet you yell how guilty jr is.
You have become a caricature, but hey you worked for the dnc so I guess it is to be expected.

a reply to: RickyD

Well I agree your disconnected. Lol
The definition of donation is simple ... money or thing of value.
Play games with words all you like but a good prosecutor would certainly use that as an argument for collusion in this case and your feeble definitions aren't going to change that. If you think trump jr doesn't have a date with Mueller and a grand jury you're so very sadly mistaken.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Let's not pretend that that whole mess last summer never happened.
It did.
That was all Russia. It was all in an effort to assist trump and trump knew they were doing it from early June of last year. And denied it at every turn insisting it was a made up story ( this RUSHER thing) when he knew for a fact that it was not a made up thing.

It was all made up from the beginning for both parties involved was it not?

Well, it was over Hillary's bad dealings with Russia, right? If she had bad dealings with Sweden then it would have been all Sweden. lol

Do you really think that Russia is trying to help Trump over Hillary, or that their main goal is to keep America politics in chaos, and with the left's "look squirrel" mentality I guess they are doing exactly what they want to do.

a reply to: Xtrozero

They are the evidence silly. Hard evidence means you can touch it.
Rolls eyes...
Interpretation of evidence is something else altogether.
As to what they mean. That's not up to you or I .
I have my opinion on what it means and obviously so do you.

a reply to: Sillyolme

What part of each section of the cfr contains its OWN definitions do you not understand?
www.ecfr.gov...
I use this daily.
It is current as of July 10,2017.
donations and contributions have actual definitions that pertain only to the cfr
"something of value" does not

§110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

originally posted by: Sillyolme

And I think you have a comprehension issue. Where did I say trump jr has evidence he's sitting on?

I'm trying to figure out what evidence you all are talking about. We all agree about the emails...so I'm just not understanding what else is it that you are suggesting here, and that is why I asked you... Is asking you a question about what else is in all that that you are all fired up about a comprehension issues, I didn't say you said that, I was just asking...lol

Triggered much?

a reply to: mkultra11

So if it was a set up wouldn't it be better if there was some gain for trump that the DNC could point to and say See he obtained that info.

This whole it's a set up just doesn't jell. It doesn't sit right. A set up has to have a pay off. As payoffs go this one to be a victory for the DNC seems to have fallen short of any goal.
What's the payoff of the set up?

I like how the DNC is so full of clever cloak and dagger types. Chock full of schemes and plans of dastardly doings. All while trying to run a campaign.
What with murder and pay for play plans and setting up their opponents with fake Russians it's a wonder they even got Beyonce and Jay Z or Katy Perry to show up.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Then my friend you are very ignorant of legal definitions and how was laws are written and read. I don't care what you think the definition is I care how the court will define it as that's the only opinion that matters. It's not games with words it's how the law works. Also I understand your frustration trying to speak about something of which you have shown through multiple post to not have a clue about...It would make me get a little snippy too if I thought I was right and didn't understand how I was wrong.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks it helps to have someone else trying to show people something they don't understand if not for anything it makes me feel not alone in a sea of nonsense.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Says the emails and the parties involved...End of story there.