I have to laugh at this; there was nothing criminal about meeting with Russians, or anyone for that matter, at the Trump tower. They could have met Putin himself and it would not be a crime.
Only morons indoctrinated by the Democratic Party of the Jackass can have such delusional arguments.
Only a moron can buy into the notion that Hillary only lost because the Russians helped Trump. That is basically what the Mueller investigation is about and why it will become a massive NOTHING burger.
You see snowflake, you cannot indict a President simply because you don't like the outcome of an election. You cannot indict a President without a crime. That is what happens in third world shit holes. That is the realm lunacy only the dumbest among us can buy into. You take the cake on stupid and misplaced arrogance and pomposity.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
Author: Booker T. Washington
Nobody has argued that meeting with Russians is a crime. The crime was meeting to solicit the provision of something of value to a campaign from a foreign national. That was the express purpose of the meeting and it was a campaign finance violation.
Also, the definition I provided doesn't require that it be a crime. So, even if you create a special invisible-ink exception to the campaign finance law that lets you get valuable information from Russians so long as you're working for Donald Trump (or whatever special exception you're imagining), such that it isn't a crime, it would still constitute cheating in the common understanding of the term (cheating isn't generally a crime), since it's seeking the assistance of a foreign government to win a US election. That would meet the dictionary definition of collusion, which says it can be secret OR illegal.
As you now understand, you misread the argument. Care to try again, now that your mistake was pointed out?Only morons indoctrinated by the Democratic Party of the Jackass can have such delusional arguments.
Feel free to start another thread on that topic. Clearly, that's not the topic of this thread. Whether the collusion brought about Trump's win, or wasn't necessary for his win, it's still collusion. And whether Trump could have won without his campaign's finance violations doesn't alter the criminality of the behavior.Only a moron can buy into the notion that Hillary only lost because the Russians helped Trump.
You see snowflake, a president isn't above indictment merely because Fox News ordered you to hate his opponent.
CharacterAssassin (01-10-2019), rjhenn (01-13-2019)
It was illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for a political campaign, which is what the meeting was expressly for. But, even if you weren't wrong about that, your point would still not be responsive. Reread the definition I provided. Is illegality a necessary element of it?
What did he do back in 2006?everyone agrees about what Don Jr did back in 2006
It did. Were you unaware that the top people in the Trump campaign agreed to meet with agents of the Russian government expressly for the purpose of obtaining valuable information as part of the Russian government's efforts to get Donald Trump elected? If so, then you're aware that it did, in fact, happen.
You are functionally illiterate if you think so. My ten-year-old niece could have answered that question correctly and you can't.yes.....
As always, the ignorance is yours. Manafort was providing Ukraine with polling data to be given to Russia. It allowed Russian hackers to pinpoint those who were most vulnerable to their propaganda. The Trump campaign was doing information sharing with foreign countries which is against the law. Do you ever get anything right? I am still waiting for the first.
You’ve been misled on the Trump Tower meeting.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association—even with Russians before an election. Anyone who wants to try and *stretch* campaign law references to ‘things of value’ to information received in a meeting—will run smack into the First Amendment.
Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.
In fact, it’s entirely plausible that Junior was lured into the meeting for that precise reason: the Russian lawyer is associated with Fusion GPS; Fusion needed to put some meat the collusion fairy tale; so why not try and entice Junior into offering a quid pro quo to the Russians? Makes perfect sense. It’s just one reason another SP is desperately called for.
At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Nobody has claimed otherwise. But campaign law clearly makes it a crime to solicit anything of value from a foreign national for purposes of a campaign, and the purpose of that meeting was expressly to solicit valuable information from the Russian government for purposes of the campaign. At this point, the Trump-apologist's only real defense is to claim that there is a secret part of the law that says "thing of value" cannot include valuable information.
Now, that's not to say the Trump legal team can't put forward the novel idea that the law is unenforceable against them because of the first amendment. And with the Supreme Court in the control of far-right-wing judges, they might even win. But step one is to indict them for it and force them to offer that as an affirmative defense, so it can be ruled on.
Of course, if the Supreme Court comes up with an unprecedented activist ruling to redefine the first amendment to allow this, it's basically game over for keeping foreign influence out of our elections. Once you have an exception that says foreign governments can assist American political campaigns as much as they like so long as they only provide "information," that exception wholly consumes the rule, since practically everything that's needed to run a campaign is information. At that point, the foreign governments could effectively just act as information service outsourcers for the campaigns of their choosing. They could do all the work of polling, building voter databases, designing campaign ads, writing speeches, hosting cloud services, doing campaign strategy, conducting debate prep, researching position papers, and so on. As long as it's "just information," it would all be legal. And since the lion's share of a campaign's expenses are outsourceable as information services, you may as well not have a rule against foreign involvement in the first place.
If that's how it worked, then foreign governments could donate anything they want to a campaign. "Hey, here's a private plane to fly you around the country." As long as the campaign didn't offer anything of value in exchange for it, then it would be said to have no value and would be allowed. For very obvious reasons, that's not how it works.Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.
Again, you're entirely wrong. The threat to the Republic, here is the law-compressing favored by the Trump apologists. They are willing to fold, spindle, and mutilate any law to the extent necessary to say that anything Trump did must be legal. If that means inventing a new rule that says information has no value for statutory purposes, that's just what they'll do, because their loyalty is to Trump, not our nation.At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
CharacterAssassin (01-10-2019)
LOL! Where'd you study law? Pep Boys? The 1st Amendment had jack shit to do with that meeting if it was for illegal purposes, sport.Nah. There's no law-stretching going on, nor can you demonstrate otherwise.
Had Junior offered something of value for the information [hint: that’s the only way any ‘value’ can be assigned to information, anyway] then that might be a different matter.
In fact, it’s entirely plausible that Junior was lured into the meeting for that precise reason: the Russian lawyer is associated with Fusion GPS; Fusion needed to put some meat the collusion fairy tale; so why not try and entice Junior into offering a quid pro quo to the Russians? Makes perfect sense. It’s just one reason another SP is desperately called for.
At any rate, all of this ‘law-stretching’ just to nail Trump is unhealthy for the republic.
You’re headed down a slippery slope by assigning ‘value’ to information sharing in a campaign.
Say a Dreamer shares ‘valuable information’ about the border with a democrat during a campaign. Are you prepared to prosecute the democrat for a campaign violation? Somehow, I think not.
And your private plane analogy is amiss: planes have an obvious value as transportation. A foreigner donating office space would be an obvious violation. Information about Hillary’s dealings with the Russians, not so much. In fact, had Junior gone straight to the FBI with it—they would have thanked him and not charged him with anything.
The Trump Tower meeting is a Nothing Burger.
Last edited by Darth Omar; 01-10-2019 at 06:31 PM.
Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017
Bookmarks