Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia email scandal shakes the presidency, v4: Cover of TIME

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

The law states that no person shall knowingly solicit or accept from a foreign national any contribution to a campaign of an item of value.

It says NOTHING about monetary.

Item of value... Information is not an item of value. C'mon man you seem to be flirting with making a claim here. Make a claim. Take my bet. Seek the glory!

 

[FinalFight]

No I wont get over it. She did get away with it. Her loosing the election is NOT the same as her earning legal trouble. She should be facing the same witch hunt Trump is. The fact she is not is bullshit.

No different then the rabid liberals who ant the Right to loose at any cost. Plenty of them to go around. I still fail to see how getting Opo research from a government source is a bad thing. Said information would not exist if the target in question had not done what ever it is that gave said government the information in the first place.

In the end, I am just glad Hillary lost. What ever it takes to defeat my political enemies.

Guess how I know you're a dumb ass?

Spoiler

 

[Throttlehead]

Item of value... Information is not an item of value. C'mon man you seem to be flirting with making a claim here. Make a claim. Take my bet. Seek the glory!

You keep yapping about sig bet on collusion, there is no law on the books for collusion. Jesus man learn some stuff before talking silly.
Information does not have value? If you ha any information on this topic, it would certainly have value for you. Seriously you are quite dense, stop talking.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If a crime was committed he should pay. This is being forced and from my pov it seems obvious. I've already called you all out. Nobody seems confident enough to take the bet. The bravado is all ya got

Don't call me out, call Trump out. What's up with all the lying? Let's get to bottom of this. Only 12-16 months to go.

 

[rokzilla]

Guess how I know you're a dumb ass?

Spoiler

Resulting to spell correction is pretty petty FYI.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Will any of you limp wristers take the bet? My account against your avatar or sig. At least blue belt and up. No Russian collusion charges against Trump or Trump Jr. You set the terms. Come get some. Send me home packin

Can we include campaign finance laws?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You keep yapping about sig bet on collusion, there is no law on the books for collusion. Jesus man learn some stuff before talking silly.
Information does not have value? If you ha any information on this topic, it would certainly have value for you. Seriously you are quite dense, stop talking.

Nice dodge. What law do you want to say that Trump or Trump Jr broke and will be charged of? I'm allowing you to word it. My account against your av or sig. Down?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If Comey had reason to believe that the POTUS was attempting to influence an investigation, this is not information he can save for a rainy day. As a FBI director, he is required to report that to the DOJ.

The guy is a leaker and a snake. Good riddance.

Did you forget Trump has a crony heading the DOJ?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Can we include campaign finance laws?

If you're going to include campaign finance laws you're going to have to be specific. My point is you're all pissing in wind. I don't know if Trump is perfect in regards to legality. But I know at this point the evidence of any crime is non existent. If you're interested write a "contract" and lets get this thing kicked off. We can switch to pm to finish details if you prefer

 

[LangfordBarrow]

You should teach law at Columbia! Your quick google search would probably have persuaded Comey and his lawyerin buddy that Comey was putting himself in real legal jeopardy.

The point that you are missing (I guess you didn't watch Comey's testimony?) was that the firing changed the meaning of Trump's comments from Trump being a bumbling noob to someone who was trying to influence how Comey proceeded in the Russia investigation, and when he couldn't and saw the investigation heading in a direction Trump didn't like, he fired him. Then the administration cooked up some phony reasons for his firing, that Trump contradicted in his Lester Holt interview, and also in his meeting with the Russians saying Comey's firing relieved great pressure.

As for him being a "leaker and snake," I will take the previous, and 2 subsequent, FBI directors opinions about Comey, along with everyone else who isn't Trump, or isn't being paid by Trump. I mean, have you ever once considered that Trump is just a lying sack of shit?

Trump should just have fired him and left it at that. Comey wasn't in his pocket, and couldn't be expected to accept Trump shitting on his reputation, just to make an excuse for the firing.

 

[Throttlehead]

Nice dodge. What law do you want to say that Trump or Trump Jr broke and will be charged of? I'm allowing you to word it. My account against your av or sig. Down?

Hey Dummy, read this!

But this is highly suggestive of a potential violation of the law on two counts. Number one, it demonstrates that the campaign as a whole had the intent to court support, receive support, solicit support from a foreign national source, in this case, the Russia government.

Second, the meeting itself could constitute illegal solicitation of support from a foreign national under campaign finance law. So, it both has broad legal significance, and on that one specific issue of liability, has a more concrete significance.

Yes. I’m talking here about a statute that has been on the books for many years that Congress tightened in 2002 that prohibits receiving and soliciting contributions from a foreign national or providing the foreign national with substantial assistance in trying to influence a U.S. election.

 

[Throttlehead]

Nice dodge. What law do you want to say that Trump or Trump Jr broke and will be charged of? I'm allowing you to word it. My account against your av or sig. Down?

It was no dodge, I was explaining to you that information has value, and the statute does not say monetary.

Let me try to explain in a simple way which you might be able to grasp.

If you were going on a three day holiday but the forecast said it was going to rain or maybe hurricane, does that information not have value? I can't believe I have to explain to you.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Hey Dummy, read this!

But this is highly suggestive of a potential violation of the law on two counts. Number one, it demonstrates that the campaign as a whole had the intent to court support, receive support, solicit support from a foreign national source, in this case, the Russia government.

Second, the meeting itself could constitute illegal solicitation of support from a foreign national under campaign finance law. So, it both has broad legal significance, and on that one specific issue of liability, has a more concrete significance.

Yes. I’m talking here about a statute that has been on the books for many years that Congress tightened in 2002 that prohibits receiving and soliciting contributions from a foreign national or providing the foreign national with substantial assistance in trying to influence a U.S. election.

I read that guy.... Look, if you're Interested in the bet, write up a contract and let me know.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

It was no dodge, I was explaining to you that information has value, and the statute does not say monetary.

Let me try to explain in a simple way which you might be able to grasp.

If you were going on a three day holiday but the forecast said it was going to rain or maybe hurricane, does that information not have value? I can't believe I have to explain to you.

I can't believe I have to explain how stupid that is. Every campaign person ever would be in violation of such an interpretation. That is inherently absurd. Think about the implications that would actually have.

 

[Throttlehead]

I can't believe I have to explain how stupid that is. Every campaign person ever would be in violation of such an interpretation. That is inherently absurd. Think about the implications that would actually have.

I’m talking here about a statute that has been on the books for many years that Congress tightened in 2002 that prohibits receiving and soliciting contributions from a foreign national or providing the foreign national with substantial assistance in trying to influence a U.S. election.

Google every word and understand each word.

Then name another instance of this.

 

[FinalFight]

The new defense from Trump lawyers was Secret Service allowed the meeting. They say no, try again.

I love it when people dig themselves into a hole.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

There was no obstruction by Trump. If there was, Comey would have been obligated to report it. Seeing as he didn't, that means either he committed perjury or no attempt was made to obstruct the investigation. Fairly straight forward but I don't mind explaining it to you.

Also, firing of the director did not stop or disrupt any ongoing FBI investigations. Quit falling for the fake news.

Finally, he is a leaker and a snake. He could have gone public himself, or went to the DOJ right away. Instead he chose to leak to the Times through a 3rd party. He's no better than that Reality Winner chick. The fact you are unable to comprehend that makes me pity you.

Sigh, he explained what could be considered obstruction (which Comey said he was leaving up to Mueller to decide), and what his thought process was to the senate intelligence committee and to the American public. Period, from Comey's own mouth. Watch the testimony before you just bleat back what Trump told you think.

And pity me all you want, try to teach a legal class based on your google searches, call Comey a leaker and a snake, but it doesn't matter. Trump is 6 months into his presidency and is a lot deeper into the Russia investigation than anyone thought he would be 3 months ago, or even 10 days ago, and at best, he will be suffering massive political consequences as a result of it, with no end in sight, and his white house is going to be burdened (legally, financially, and psychologically) on a daily basis by Mueller's investigation. Nobody knows what Mueller will find in his investigation, but based on the dishonesty by Flynn, Kushner, and Trump Jr. about all things Russia, odds are that this isn't the last surprise.

But yeah "fake news," "no obstruction, no collusion, he's a leaker," "lock her up", "build the wall and Mexico will pay for it," and "grab em by the pussy," etc., etc.,

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I’m talking here about a statute that has been on the books for many years that Congress tightened in 2002 that prohibits receiving and soliciting contributions from a foreign national or providing the foreign national with substantial assistance in trying to influence a U.S. election.

Google every word and understand each word.

Then name another instance of this.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You think he broke this law. I'll bet you he didn't and won't be charged because you're interpretation of that law is absurd.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If you're going to include campaign finance laws you're going to have to be specific. My point is you're all pissing in wind. I don't know if Trump is perfect in regards to legality. But I know at this point the evidence of any crime is non existent. If you're interested write a "contract" and lets get this thing kicked off. We can switch to pm to finish details if you prefer

Let's wait and see how this plays out. Maybe at this point there's nothing we can say is criminal but the investigations aren't complete. There is enough suspicion for us to make sure no laws were broken.

 

[Throttlehead]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

You think he broke this law. I'll bet you he didn't and won't be charged because you're interpretation of that law is absurd.

So you couldn't even read 2 lines down in your link?

(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.