Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: rnaa

Don't be absurd. Junior was one of his fathers top campaign advisors.

I don't recall seeing him listed as an advisor. I'm open to being proven wrong on this but no one has done so yet. Another poster raised a valid concern that kushner was part of the campaign and he was in the meeting, which is true if my memory serves.

No. Only that supplied by 'donation' by foreign nationals.

So you're saying if they paid for it, it would be ok? But even that doesn't make any sense because according to the law, they don't have to actually make a donation, just promise to. (NOTE: No donation was made)

Not true. It makes it a crime for US citizens to solicit donations from foreign nationals.

Which law? Not the one that was quoted. The law that makes that illegal is later on in the USC.

And here is a little article that details why that law professor is wrong.

Actually that article doesn't even touch on what the professor is saying. The case law cited in your article is specifically about monetary donations. It even admits as much in the second line where it says:

This Sidebar provides an overview of the prohibitions on foreign money under federal campaign finance
law.

I give you an A for effort but a C for substance.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Annee

Opinion piece?

O.K., maybe my assumptions are wrong. I figured you for a HRC loving leftist who believes HRC can do no wrong. So......to get to the facts of Uranium One, I went to a leftist media outlet to get their version of the facts.

And now you reject their version of the facts as opinion?

I have said Hillary was the most qualified for the position of president of those who ran. She has the history and the experience.

Again - - an opinion piece is an opinion piece.

Facts - - REAL FACTS - - matter.

Uranium is traded on the commodity market all the time. Hillary was one member of a group of 9.

Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym. www.factcheck.org...

a reply to: rnaa

So it is your argument that 'opposition research' has no value? Seriously?

No. not at all. My argument is that 'thing of value' is much more specific. Everything has value. Opposition research is protected by free speech laws and is not subject to campaign finance law.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

So now you're backtracking in your second post where you claimed you didn't say trump admitted to a quid pro quo? It could have been simply misleading information to get your foot in the door, the bait and switch is as old as time.

Im not backtracking on anything. I AM saying Trump admitted to Trump Jr. obtaining reciprocal product (the product doesn't matter), and as a part of Trump's campaign there is legal exposure.

but he didn't ''obtain'' anything..

You're right...I let my mind get ahead of me...what I should have written was "of trying to obtain"..nothing yet has been proven.

question - if this meeting is proven to have been setup by the DNC to try and trap the Trump campaign - would you look at it differently?

Absolutely. In fact, I trust neither side to do the right thing...In fact, I have complete confidence that during the course of the investigation of the tower meeting, if it is found that the DNC played a part, I would have to look at the entire thing differently. I find it highly doubtful though, Trump Jr. tried to jump through too many hoops, created too many different stories, and Trump himself tried running too many circles for them to not have a reason to worry.

a reply to: rnaa

I didn't cut that off, the poster who originally posted it did. I'm amazed it took this long for someone to figure that out.

See here I simply played the cards I was dealt.

a reply to: alphabetaone

So, if he obtained no information - - was there any real info to be obtained?

Some are convinced, because of this, that the Russians actually have dirt on Hillary.

It's like, who cares if Trump went there to get info - - the only thing that matters is that Russia "knows the truth" about Hillary.

What info?

originally posted by: FreeDeplorable
Meeting with a foreign national to get dirt on your opponent is not a crime.

It is wild how BS seems baked into Trumpites cognitive processes.

"Foreign National" ??? Perhaps a member of Monty Python recounts being on an elevator with Hillary Clinton when she passed gas?

THIS is what Trump Jr. got so excited about..His words "I LOVE IT!"

Good morning


Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.


The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.


This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.


What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?


I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
DIRECTLY OFFERING.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION.
TO HELP THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

That is not a "foreign national", that is a FORIEGN GOVERNMENT.

Using known fraudulent documents to get permission to spy in a FISA court is a crime.

Yes it is. Unfortunately for your line of BS this claim has been thoroughly debunked by all evidence and the GOP in congress (apart form comrade Nunes) concluded the same.

a reply to: Annee

Interesting..........so the NYT had to walk back their original story. Which essentially proves nothing. And to be clear, I'd thought at the time that HRC was "one of the" best qualified. I simply couldn't stomach another 4 to 8 years of the Clintons and their dubious dealings.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Annee

Interesting..........so the NYT had to walk back their original story. Which essentially proves nothing. And to be clear, I'd thought at the time that HRC was "one of the" best qualified. I simply couldn't stomach another 4 to 8 years of the Clintons and their dubious dealings.

Dubious Dealings.

Facts required (not on this thread).

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

So, if he obtained no information - - was there any real info to be obtained?

Some are convinced, because of this, that the Russians actually have dirt on Hillary.

It's like, who cares if Trump went there to get info - - the only thing that matters is that Russia "knows the truth" about Hillary.

What info?

The Obvious.

June 3, 2016: Trump, Jr. receives an email from Rob Goldstone, a business associate. Goldstone tells the younger Trump that Moscow supports his father’s candidacy, and says he has a connection to a Russian government official with incriminating evidence against Hillary Clinton.

Goldstone tells Trump Jr.: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."

The younger Trump replied that same day: "If it’s what you say I love it."

June 7, 2016: Trump announced he would soon make a "major speech" on Clinton.

June 8, 2016: Russian intelligence officers launch DC Leaks, a website used to release stolen emails.

June 9, 2016: Trump, Jr., Manafort and Kushner meet with a Russian national and several others at Trump Tower, based on Goldstone’s promise to Trump Jr. that a "Russian government attorney" would deliver damaging information about Clinton. Several shifting accounts of the meeting were later offered.

June-July 2016: WikiLeaks and DCLeaks release thousands of documents about Clinton and internal DNC deliberations.

www.politifact.com...

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

So, if he obtained no information - - was there any real info to be obtained?

Some are convinced, because of this, that the Russians actually have dirt on Hillary.

It's like, who cares if Trump went there to get info - - the only thing that matters is that Russia "knows the truth" about Hillary.

What info?

No, simply that there's no proof yet that anything all all was received during the meeting, I'm simply hoping that when it goes to trial, the proof will exist.
To the second part, yeah, it seems to be a mindset of "who cares if I broke the law? Now I know stuff" which is insane.

I personally believe (and believe it will be proven) that the Russians were solicited by the Trump Campaign, that it was Trump Jr. doing the soliciting (with Jared's help) and that Jr. is in some seriously hot water.


ETA: Nothing has been proven yet that the public is aware of...it's altogether possible that it has been proven and we simply don't know it.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: rnaa

would paying a Russian operative for opposition research, AND GETTING IT, be a crime?

In my opinion (and IANAL), contracting with a research company, that is foreign owned or domiciled, to do 'opposition research' is not illegal.

It is NOT a donation, it is a paid contract. The code appears to apply to donations only.

So what is the real difference here? Is it that Steele used Fusion GPS to be the middle man, and therefore, all good, or could it be that you are working sooper hard to do the mental gymnastics to make the one side guilty, and the other side not guilty, when essentially, the same thing took place? (I mean other than one side actually receiving the dirt, and the other not)

I realize this won't get a real answer, but perhaps as you struggle to make this sound logical, you could think on it a bit and realize that what you are doing is trying to hide your TDS by placing it in front of a freshly cleaned window.

And I bet Trump did know all about the meeting before hand, and likely either knew it was a set up, or someone told him it was, before hand. (If you look into this, it kind of does look like a setup)

a reply to: soberbacchus

Always interesting that WikiLeaks didn't have info on Hillary's opponent.

As I've been told on ATS - - WikiLeaks is completely unbiased.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: alphabetaone

So, if he obtained no information - - was there any real info to be obtained?

Some are convinced, because of this, that the Russians actually have dirt on Hillary.

It's like, who cares if Trump went there to get info - - the only thing that matters is that Russia "knows the truth" about Hillary.

What info?

Nothing has been proven yet that the public is aware of...it's altogether possible that it has been proven and we simply don't know it.

Thanks.

Yes, this is where I stand.

The speculation on ATS - - as if it's verified fact - - can make you crazy (or, at least make you stop, think, and not "Follow the Rabbit" down that hole)

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: rnaa

would paying a Russian operative for opposition research, AND GETTING IT, be a crime?

In my opinion (and IANAL), contracting with a research company, that is foreign owned or domiciled, to do 'opposition research' is not illegal.

It is NOT a donation, it is a paid contract. The code appears to apply to donations only.

when essentially, the same thing took place?

One was an independent contractor consulting for an opposition research company to assemble an opposition research report that was paid for by both Republican and Democrats.

The other was the Russian Federation, a government hostile to the United States and actively conducting a criminal cyber and propaganda campaign to influence a free US election.

McDonalds is not the Russian Government because they have restuarants in England.

The false equivalency argument is absurd to anyone with a healthy brain.

So, let's say in a perfect lib world everything pans out and Trump Jr. is tried and found guilty of something related to this. What's the penalty? Will he be going to the gallows or just paying some meaningless fine and be on his way?

a reply to: Annee

They did have info on trump (and were actively trying to get trump's tax returns as well as many other things), but it wasn't anything earth shattering since the RNC wasn't rigging their primary and all.

a reply to: underpass61

Fines are the norm, especially for a first time offense. There is chance of imprisonment, but it's pretty low.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Unfortunately for that argument, the law doesn't distinguish. Foreign nationals includes citizens and government officials alike. But hillary was deep in bed with government officials in ukraine trying to secure her election, so there's no false equivalence really, just have to look another direction to find some thing similar.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

They did have info on trump (and were actively trying to get trump's tax returns as well as many other things), but it wasn't anything earth shattering since the RNC wasn't rigging their primary and all.

Uh, huh.

Sure they did. Of course it wasn't.