"imagine" if the NYT never had the actual emails! if I were the NYT I would tweet that to Jr..."we never seen the emails, the world thanks you for releasing the chain" #
Actively working with a foreign power to subvert and influence the US Presidential Election is pretty damn treasonous if you ask me
Perhaps....I dont think so,but I'm not a lawyer and I didnt even stay at a Holiday inn last night.
But I really doubt it gets to that. I've been wrong before....I thought Trump wouldn't win the GOP nomination....or the election....so my track record on this guy sucks.
Treason may be overstated but I believe there are some laws from early 20th century about colluding with a foreign power that would be violated.
Also, this would definitely violate the election laws that prohibit taking anything of value from a foreign power. It does not have to be monetary.
Actively working with a foreign power to subvert and influence the US Presidential Election is pretty damn treasonous if you ask me
Perhaps....I dont think so,but I'm not a lawyer and I didnt even stay at a Holiday inn last night.
But I really doubt it gets to that. I've been wrong before....I thought Trump wouldn't win the GOP nomination....or the election....so my track record on this guy sucks.
Treason may be overstated but I believe there are some laws from early 20th century about colluding with a foreign power that would be violated.
Also, this would definitely violate the election laws that prohibit taking anything of value from a foreign power. It does not have to be monetary.
any interest in discussing how ridiculous this piece is?
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
“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,”
Can anyone find the huge hole in the argument that a campaign finance law was broken?
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
“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,”
Can anyone find the huge hole in the argument that a campaign finance law was broken?
The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.
Actively working with a foreign power to subvert and influence the US Presidential Election is pretty damn treasonous if you ask me
Perhaps....I dont think so,but I'm not a lawyer and I didnt even stay at a Holiday inn last night.
But I really doubt it gets to that. I've been wrong before....I thought Trump wouldn't win the GOP nomination....or the election....so my track record on this guy sucks.
Treason may be overstated but I believe there are some laws from early 20th century about colluding with a foreign power that would be violated.
Also, this would definitely violate the election laws that prohibit taking anything of value from a foreign power. It does not have to be monetary.
would "endorsements" from leaders of foreign powers be considered "of value"?
Actively working with a foreign power to subvert and influence the US Presidential Election is pretty damn treasonous if you ask me
Perhaps....I dont think so,but I'm not a lawyer and I didnt even stay at a Holiday inn last night.
But I really doubt it gets to that. I've been wrong before....I thought Trump wouldn't win the GOP nomination....or the election....so my track record on this guy sucks.
Treason may be overstated but I believe there are some laws from early 20th century about colluding with a foreign power that would be violated.
Also, this would definitely violate the election laws that prohibit taking anything of value from a foreign power. It does not have to be monetary.
would "endorsements" from leaders of foreign powers be considered "of value"?
Doubtful. Intel would certainly be something of value. I feel like you're making the case against DJT. What is the huge whole to which you speak?
1. collusion has no precise legal meaning, I'm not so sure of that. 2. collusion can exist absent anything illegal, I'm certain this is totally inaccurate.
1. collusion has no precise legal meaning, I'm not so sure of that. 2. collusion can exist absent anything illegal, I'm certain this is totally inaccurate.
You don't have to be sure... only the prosecution and the jury need to be sure.
1. David French seems to want to accentuate "unsuccessfully" in the attempt at collusion. But how do we know it was unsuccessful at this point? The only info we have re: the result of the meeting is what the attorney and DJT said. These are not exactly credible sources.
2. Adam Schiff was on MSNBC this morning and said the intel committee has a lot more information than what is available publicly. And one would think Mueller has even more.
1. David French seems to want to accentuate "unsuccessfully" in the attempt at collusion. But how do we know it was unsuccessful at this point? The only info we have re: the result of the meeting is what the attorney and DJT said. These are not exactly credible sources.
2. Adam Schiff was on MSNBC this morning and said the intel committee has a lot more information than what is available publicly. And one would think Mueller has even more.
This is likely just the start.
Agreed. He's just a bit more reasonable than most partisan hacks on the right.
I am buckled up and enjoying the ride to impeachment.
1. David French seems to want to accentuate "unsuccessfully" in the attempt at collusion. But how do we know it was unsuccessful at this point? The only info we have re: the result of the meeting is what the attorney and DJT said. These are not exactly credible sources.
2. Adam Schiff was on MSNBC this morning and said the intel committee has a lot more information than what is available publicly. And one would think Mueller has even more.
This is likely just the start.
Agreed. He's just a bit more reasonable than most partisan hacks on the right.
I am buckled up and enjoying the ride to impeachment.
I was too young for Watergate, but this is a helluva lot more interesting. I know Trump likes drama and ratings...well he's got that!
So funny how the narrative has changed from "there's no collusion" to "collusion isn't illegal."
Wonder what it will change to when the next shoe falls?
that's not what I'm saying at all...to be clear I'm saying Collusion is an agreement to do something illegal. I'm not sure what crime Jr or any Trump associate agreed to or attempted to do/collude with Russia. Maybe Mueller has or will find the crime(s). Conspiracy is a different animal but collusion has been the buzz word thrown around these boards and from the mouth of Harvard law graduate Tim Kaine, not conspiracy to commit. Information about a political opponent is not and never will be a CAMPAIGN contribution, in kind or otherwise. Emails from foreign governments or friends of Russia lawyers is not and never will be considered campaign contributions.
So funny how the narrative has changed from "there's no collusion" to "collusion isn't illegal."
Wonder what it will change to when the next shoe falls?
that's not what I'm saying at all...to be clear I'm saying Collusion is an agreement to do something illegal. I'm not sure what crime Jr or any Trump associate agreed to or attempted to do/collude with Russia. Maybe Mueller has or will find the crime(s). Conspiracy is a different animal but collusion has been the buzz word thrown around these boards and from the mouth of Harvard law graduate Tim Kaine, not conspiracy to commit. Information about a political opponent is not and never will be a CAMPAIGN contribution, in kind or otherwise. Emails from foreign governments or friends of Russia lawyers is not and never will be considered campaign contributions.
Fella, your asking questions we do not have answers to yet. Give it time. Let it breath.
Sit back and enjoy the road to impeachment. Your answers will be revealed in due time.
1. David French seems to want to accentuate "unsuccessfully" in the attempt at collusion. But how do we know it was unsuccessful at this point? The only info we have re: the result of the meeting is what the attorney and DJT said. These are not exactly credible sources.
2. Adam Schiff was on MSNBC this morning and said the intel committee has a lot more information than what is available publicly. And one would think Mueller has even more.
This is likely just the start.
It started in 2008 with "tons of money from Russia pouring in."
Comments
I missed that joke, I was too busy talking to everyone about John Podesta.
if I were the NYT I would tweet that to Jr..."we never seen the emails, the world thanks you for releasing the chain" #
Also, this would definitely violate the election laws that prohibit taking anything of value from a foreign power. It does not have to be monetary.
That's going to be the joke phrase coming out of all of this...
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
The statute in question is 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510 — the law governing foreign contributions to US campaigns. There are two key passages that apply here. This is the first:
“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,”Can anyone find the huge hole in the argument that a campaign finance law was broken?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.
I'm certain this is a serious crime too. How long will he hold onto his job?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449376/donald-trump-jr-e-mails-proof-trump-campaign-attempted-collusion-russia?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=french&utm_content=russia-collusion
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2. collusion can exist absent anything illegal, I'm certain this is totally inaccurate.
1. David French seems to want to accentuate "unsuccessfully" in the attempt at collusion. But how do we know it was unsuccessful at this point? The only info we have re: the result of the meeting is what the attorney and DJT said. These are not exactly credible sources.
2. Adam Schiff was on MSNBC this morning and said the intel committee has a lot more information than what is available publicly. And one would think Mueller has even more.
This is likely just the start.
Agreed. He's just a bit more reasonable than most partisan hacks on the right.
I am buckled up and enjoying the ride to impeachment.
http://www.npr.org/2017/07/10/536505276/trump-russia-probe-raises-debate-over-whether-collusion-is-criminal
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So funny how the narrative has changed from "there's no collusion" to "collusion isn't illegal."
Wonder what it will change to when the next shoe falls?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Collusion is an agreement to do something illegal. I'm not sure what crime Jr or any Trump associate agreed to or attempted to do/collude with Russia. Maybe Mueller has or will find the crime(s). Conspiracy is a different animal but collusion has been the buzz word thrown around these boards and from the mouth of Harvard law graduate Tim Kaine, not conspiracy to commit.
Information about a political opponent is not and never will be a CAMPAIGN contribution, in kind or otherwise. Emails from foreign governments or friends of Russia lawyers is not and never will be considered campaign contributions.
Fella, your asking questions we do not have answers to yet. Give it time. Let it breath.
Sit back and enjoy the road to impeachment. Your answers will be revealed in due time.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hysterical to watch them unravel, isn't it?
https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/884854358705360896