Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

originally posted by: JBurns

There is no lie.

Yes, there is / was.

He's acknowledged the purpose of this standard political meeting for over a year now.

It was anything BUT a standard political meeting, hence the lies.

There is absolutely nothing criminal about what he did. Nothing whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure 52 US Code § 30121 would love to set you straight.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b)“Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

ie., Conspiracy to defraud US Citizens.

He didn't lie under oath or to federal investigators

How does this even matter? A lot of people commit crimes without preceding testimony lol If you were trying to make sense, try harder.

He didn't engage in any sort of unlawful conspiracy (its not a crime to receive information)

As shown above per 52 US Code § 30121, it certainly is if it came from a foreign national. Which it did during his campaign and can be considered an "item of value", and thus constitutes a crime.

He didn't break a single law in the private meeting, nor did his son.

Continuing to repeat the same garbage over and over, doesn't make it legitimate.

..and it was a *private* meeting conducted while he was a private citizen - hence, it is no one but their business.

Nope. The meeting occurred while he was Candidate for US President, and there are strict laws governing how one can operate within that sphere.

Just because you don't like Russians doesn't mean he isn't allowed to associate with Russians. This is a free country, last I checked. I don't blame him, especially since they supposedly had useful dirt to help derail Hillary (which is exactly what she was attempting to do with the Russians AND the Brits)

Always the fallback to HRC. If Hillary committed a crime, I say lock her up. But right now, we're talking about Donald Trumps malfeasance, not Hillary's.

At least he can openly discuss political matters associated with his public service and give "correct" answers, unlike you-know-who.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Contributions and donations

There was no contribution or donation though..

Don Jr went there after 'they' contacted him and said they had information about crimes the Clinton Camp had done.
Then, when the meeting kicked off, it became obvious it was a setup by the DNC

If you want to look at contributions, look at Saudi, Qatar donations to Hillary as well - but we cannot do that can we, because you only want to focus on spinning Trumps legal activities as illegal.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Annee

No, it doesn't. That's your cop out, please feel free to cite conflicting facts that show Democrats have not become more liberal. Oh hey you can't, 20 years ago a self admitted socialist would have no chance to win, she does now.

Define Liberal

Both links you provided IBD & RED STATE (picked up by CNN) are conservative news sites.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh how hilarious. The campaign contribution angle again.
So, first more fake news that the President contradicted the original statement on the meeting, now it's the contributions rehash... are you chaps running out of ideas?

a reply to: UKTruth

Oh how hilarious.

I find it disturbing that you think that 5 years in a federal prison is hilarious.

a reply to: UKTruth

You realize that everyone of you who claim there is nothing illegal in what he did are fooling only yourselves.
There certainly was illegal activity because the info was coming from a foreign national to assist a U.S. election with the likelyhood of promises of reciprocity which is against US law.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I call this whistling past the bone yard.
AKA putting on a brave face.

a reply to: UKTruth

Never mind that. Trump takes a meeting where Russia delivers the goods in the way of the DNC hack and says we are helping you to get elected we expect the Magnitsky act to be repealed ASAP. Putin and his buddies want their money back. We expect sanctions to be lowered or repealed.
Adoption?? Like dressing up a scene of a family with puppies in a basket.
Who doesn't want to help orphans? Has nothing to do with anything but sounds so innocuous and unpolitical and innocent.
A smoke screen.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: notsure1

Many actually do.

Total lie.
Where are you getting your figures on something like that besides your own head?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sorry but nope. Obama didn't do any such thing and he's not dirty. You're projecting trump failings and characteristics onto what you view as the opposition.
The opposition isn't Obama, it's U.S. law and that morons total disregard for it.
He's the one who is completely dirty. He reeks with the filth. Morally and ethically.
You are completely delusional in choosing to turn your blind eyes away.
Not me.
My eyes are wide open and I am not wrong about this.
I imagine I'll be proven correct in the not too distant future. Again...

a reply to: Kharron

not sure what the excitement is, but didn't Don Jr. release the entire email chain that explained this exactly as Trump just said?

a reply to: alphabetaone

you seem to be confused. The meeting took place, and all sides say that nothing was exchanged. So what gift was given?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: alphabetaone

you seem to be confused. The meeting took place, and all sides say that nothing was exchanged. So what gift was given?

Legally speaking...it may be evidence of intent.

Kinda like saying....

." Oh yeah I put my hand up to breaking into the bank vault...but it was empty today sooo... I didn't actually steal anything...therefore I am innocent ! "

Not a defence.
Guilty !

originally posted by: cosmickat

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: alphabetaone

you seem to be confused. The meeting took place, and all sides say that nothing was exchanged. So what gift was given?

Legally speaking...it may be evidence of intent.

Kinda like saying....

." Oh yeah I put my hand up to breaking into the bank vault...but it was empty today sooo... I didn't actually steal anything...therefore I am innocent ! "

Not a defence.
Guilty !

The key difference being that robbing a bank is illegal and getting information about a political opponent from a foreigner is not. So, actually, no need for a defence.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh how hilarious.

I find it disturbing that you think that 5 years in a federal prison is hilarious.

Well no, what is hilarious is the 2 years of self-imposed mental prison suffered by those who keep grasping at straws to give them some hope that Trump won't be their President for much longer.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

Never mind that. Trump takes a meeting

true

where Russia delivers the goods in the way of the DNC hack and says we are helping you to get elected we expect the Magnitsky act to be repealed ASAP. Putin and his buddies want their money back. We expect sanctions to be lowered or repealed.

Conjecture backed up by zero evidence

A smoke screen.

Conjecture

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: cosmickat

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: alphabetaone

you seem to be confused. The meeting took place, and all sides say that nothing was exchanged. So what gift was given?

Legally speaking...it may be evidence of intent.

Kinda like saying....

." Oh yeah I put my hand up to breaking into the bank vault...but it was empty today sooo... I didn't actually steal anything...therefore I am innocent ! "

Not a defence.
Guilty !

The key difference being that robbing a bank is illegal and getting information about a political opponent from a foreigner is not. So, actually, no need for a defence.

I would not be so quick to say conspiring with Russians to gain a presidency is wholly legal in the US

Recent developments in the law speak clearly to the strength of the government’s interest in an expansive enforcement of the ban on foreign national involvement in U.S. elections. In 2012, in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, a federal appellate court ruled, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that lawful resident aliens had no First Amendment right to contribute to American candidates and political committees. More importantly, the court emphasized that foreign national political intervention implicated a principle “fundamental to the definition of our national political community,” which is that “foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” At stake was “part of the sovereign’s obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.” It will be no minor feat for Trump campaign lawyers, relying on Donald Trump’s free speech rights, to overcome what the court called this “foundational” interest.

Mr. Trump and his campaign might argue that the hacking and dissemination of the emails were not political spending–not, in a technical sense, “contributions” nor “expenditures”– covered by the federal campaign finance law. Perhaps so, but they were something of value, and the statute and related regulations of the Federal Election Commission separately prohibit any value given by a foreign national. Of course, the Trump campaign might take up the fight on this issue and litigate it. It would then have the thankless task of persuading a court that a presidential candidate can invite, then warmly accept and exploit, the activities of a foreign intelligence service because it is a particular kind of “value,” not a conventional contribution or expenditure. The campaign will have an even harder time if it is established that Russians distributed information through online bots, the creation of DC Leaks in the United States, or the payment for online advertising.

legal implications

It is not as clear cut as these boards on ATS read.
There are many grey areas.
Will be interesting to see what defence Trump's team of hot $hit lawyers come up with.
Even more interesting..if Trump sits down with Mueller and shoots himself in the foot.

Trump stinks of guilt.