Donald Trump Jr. just posted the e-mails

[Noxx79]

From Trump Jr friend's side, who had his own friends with supposed personal connections.

And? The email literally says that he's going to set up a meeting with a Russian with information from the govt as part of their desire to help trump. The meeting was set up and took place. The meeting was with a Russian. Trump jr. went into the meeting knowing all this.

It is utterly irrelevant that they didn't get the information they wanted.

[Wyrt]

they didn't get the information they wanted.

According to Trump Jr., who is a confirmed liar.

[Shalcker]

Look Russian, things work a bit differently in America, where the law rules. I know thats a foreign concept to you.

The lawyer could have talked about Sanctions. The lawyer could talked about Orphans. The lawyer could have pulled down her pants and mooned them. It is utterly immaterial what the lawyer did or did not do. It is utterly immaterial what the lawyer did not say.

Fredo Trump, Crooked Jared, and Paulie Walnuts commited a crime by going to the meeting knowing what it would be about. Whether they spent any time learning anything new, or got anything, or did anything thereafter, is immaterial. It demonstrated intent to violate US law.

What law you ask? This one.

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

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

It 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 …

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) … from a foreign national.



"Things of value" includes information.

If that would actually work in this case you would already got Trump for "release those deleted Hillary emails you got, Russians" during campaign.

Because it is exactly same thing.

And since you didn't, so far it looks like nothing.

...not to mention that it would also jail Hillary/her campaign staff for talks with Ukrainians.

What is the actual practice with this law? Was anyone actually convicted for soliciting information?

[Skroe]

If that would actually work in this case you would already got Trump for "release those deleted Hillary emails you got, Russians" during campaign.

Because it is exactly same thing.

And since you didn't, so far it looks like nothing.

In Putin-mafioso Russia, context may not matter. In the land of the free, it still does, Russian.

The context of Trump's campaign rant and, you know, a private meeting in Trump tower that was concealed to government investigators before being discovered, is, you know, completely fucking different, lol.

In any event legal consensus in the US is Fredo Trump not only tied his own noose, but made the rope that he'll hang with.

In any event, collusion is now a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trumps will pay first. You'll never stop paying.

[want my Slimjim]

Holy fucking shit.

I guess there are ways to speed up an impeachment trial.

No we don't America should be working with Russia not against it for unknown reasons. Our government has betrayed us by being against Russia when the threats are isis and n korea

The Trump's are doing a right thing and a service to the people.

[Shalcker]

In Putin-mafioso Russia, context may not matter. In the land of the free, it still does, Russian.

The context of Trump's campaign rant and, you know, a private meeting in Trump tower that was concealed to government investigators before being discovered, is, you know, completely fucking different, lol.

Don't see any relevant differences really.

In any event legal consensus in the US is Fredo Trump not only tied his own noose, but made the rope that he'll hang with.

Can you link analysis by actual legal specialists then?

What exactly is being violated, prior precendents, and what is expected as punishment in case it goes to court?

Here i see argument that he is innocent in this case.
Quote:
The Code of Federal Regulations makes the law immunizing Trump Jr.’s actions precisely clear: any foreign national individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The law provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone on the campaign. See 11 CFR 100.74. For example, as the Federal Election Commission advises all, “an individual can provide volunteer services to a candidate or party without considering the value of those service a contribution to the candidate or party.” Section 30121 of Title 52 does not apply to voluntary activity or services. The thing “of value” must be actual money, or its transferable equivalent, not a volunteer of services or information. Otherwise, if volunteering information in coordination with a campaign constituted donations, everyone from John Harwood to Chuck Todd (and maybe all of CNN) made millions in donations to the Hillary campaign, as WikiLeaks emails disclosed.

[Deianeira]

Well I personally don't care. Even if you assume hes as dirty as sin which he is not, he basically went alone against the entire establishment. The Clintons had media on their side, making up lies, the entire establishment was against him. Even if he had to cheat (which he didn't), it would have been just to even the playfield a bit cause you can bet your socks, if Hillary had won, the media would be singing her praises, instead of trying to reveal her corruption.

What lies did the media make up about Trump?

Also curious as your definition of what "Fake News" is?

[Redwyrm]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.96ab48c8658c

The New York Times reported — and Donald Trump Jr. appeared to confirm — that he agreed to a meeting with a Russian lawyer who had damaging information on Hillary Clinton after getting an email that the Russian government was trying to help his father win the election.

“It's as close as you can get to a smoking gun” of whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, said Jeffrey Jacobovitz, a white-collar lawyer who represented officials in the Clinton White House and now is with Arnall Golden Gregory. And it could mean Trump Jr. crossed the legal line on collusion with Russia.

First, a reframing of the way we think of collusion. Collusion actually is a political term; there's no line in the criminal code that says you go to jail for colluding with a foreign adversary.

But you can go to jail for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence or undermine an election, and Jacobovitz thinks what Trump Jr. did, as documented by emails he himself shared on Twitter, could rise to that level.

“Absolutely,” Jacobovitz replied when asked if these emails firm up evidence that Trump Jr. had intent to commit a crime by conspiring with the Russians. “You may have crossed the line on conspiracy to commit election fraud or conspiracy to obtain information from a foreign adversary,” he said. “You cannot benefit from a foreign adversary in this kind of scenario.”

Other legal minds agree. "It's a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy," said Jens David Ohlin, associate dean of Cornell Law School, in a statement shared with The Post. "The conversation will now turn to whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign's involvement appears settled now. The answer is yes."

In the emails, Trump Jr. associate Rob Goldstone tells Trump Jr. that Russian officials “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and 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."

What special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team of a dozen or so practiced investigators are probably looking for is evidence that the Trump campaign intended to illegally conspire with Russia to help its campaign or hurt Clinton's. (Russia is also known for tricking people into doing its bidding.)

The fact that Trump Jr. took this meeting while being told what the Russians were up to is as clear as intent can get, legal experts say.

“If he received an email in advance saying, 'This is coming from the Russian government,' he's certainly knowledgeable about where the information is coming from,” Jacobovitz said. “And he attempts to attend a meeting with the hope and intent to obtain inside dirt on Hillary Clinton. That would go a long way in trying to determine whether it's conspiracy. … It's not as if he walks into the meeting and he's surprised by what he's hearing.”

Another piece of evidence to stack up in the “intent” column: Why were two of Trump's top campaign aides also invited to the meeting? Trump Jr. says Trump's then-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner would also be there to meet with the Russian lawyer. It suggests that the Trump campaign put a very high premium on the meeting.

And it raises the question, as asked by The Fix's Aaron Blake, of what President Trump himself knew about the meeting. (The White House says the president wasn't aware of this meeting and denies any collusion by anyone in his campaign.)

etc.

[Noxx79]

No we don't America should be working with Russia not against it for unknown reasons. Our government has betrayed us by being against Russia when the threats are isis and n korea

The Trump's are doing a right thing and a service to the people.

An expected response from someone who idolizes traitors and losers.

[Skroe]

Don't see any relevant differences really.

Can you link analysis by actual legal specialists then?

What exactly is being violated, prior precendents, and what is expected as punishment in case it goes to court?

https://sidebarsblog.com/collusion-r...lection-crime/

It's an enormous post, but have fun. It's everything. Now with this:

https://www.justsecurity.org/42956/o...nation-russia/

This is the part you want to read. This is from NYU Law Professor of Practice Bob Bauer

Soliciting the “Thing of Value”

To coordinate spending is to receive a contribution. It is also illegal to solicit a contribution or expenditure–any “thing of value”–from a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. 30121(a)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (g). A solicitation also need not be express: it can be implied. It is useful to consider the regulatory definition of “solicitation” adopted by the Federal Election Commission. I have put in italics key portions:

To solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication.
11 C.F.R. §300.2(m).

In sum a solicitation may be implied as well as express, and it is determined by examining all the relevant circumstances, including the context in which the communication in question is made. The President made an express appeal in public comments for Russian help, and the potential for finding an illegal contribution is reinforced by his repeated refusals to acknowledge or denounce the Russians for what the intelligence community formally found to be their program of interfering in the election. The freshly reported communications with Russian nationals add weight to the question of whether he and his campaign were really “soliciting” or just “joking.”

The Russians could reasonably understand that the campaign was very much in the market for this information. By suggesting that she had such information, a Russian national with a relationship to her government could obtain an audience with intimate associates of the candidate: his campaign manager, his son and his son-in-law. It would have been hard for the Russians to mistake the intensity of the campaign’s interest. The very scheduling of the meeting–and the status of the attendees–was sufficient to get the campaign’s point across about what it highly valued and was prepared to take from a foreign source. And if they had any doubt, it would have been resolved by the President’s public call, a little six weeks later, for the Russians, “if you’re listening,” to find the emails.

It also bears emphasis that a solicitation need not be successful in order to be illegal. The law applied here is not about an attempt, inchoate or otherwise, to commit a federal offence—the very solicitation is itself a potential crime.

More
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...his_other.html

I asked Michael Gerhardt, who teaches at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, if he thought the new emails rise to the level of criminality. While Gerhardt had told the New York Daily News on Monday—that is, before the emails were released and Trump Jr. was calling the story a “nothing burger”—that he did not yet see evidence of a crime, he now says the threshold seems to have been met. “With every attempt at transparency Donald Trump Jr. digs himself more deeply into the hole of criminality,” he told me via email. “He appears to have gone into that meeting—and likely others—looking for something of value—dirt on Hillary Clinton—from sources he should have stayed away from. His judgment was bad, to say the least.”

Asked whether he believes there is now evidence of criminal conduct, Gerhardt referenced 52 U.S. Code Section 30121. “I think his emails and tweets show he’s likely broken federal law prohibiting meetings and exchanges of the kind he had,” he wrote. And as to whether there is anything more than that to the legal story here, Gerhardt wrote this: “I would say that if the president or any other high-ranking executive branch official knew about or participated in meetings like this, there would be at the very least a basis for an impeachment inquiry.”

And to drive the point home, here's 17 legal experts all saying (mostly) the same thing.

Miriam Baer, law professor, Brooklyn Law School
Today’s newly released emails make it easier for a fact finder to infer that Manafort and Kushner joined an illicit conspiracy (e.g., agreeing to accept “anything of value” from a foreign national — and in this case, someone who appeared to be acting as an intermediary for a foreign adversary), although a good defense attorney could still find some wiggle room. Presumably these are not the last emails we will see, and as we see more evidence, we may find additional members of the Trump team who were aware of and encouraged this meeting.

A final point: given Mr. Manafort’s previous history advising political campaigns (not to mention the fact that he graduated from law school and was a highly successful lobbyist), it is inconceivable that he didn’t recognize the potentially fraught nature of Donald Trump Jr.’s contacts with Rob Goldstone [who arranged the meeting], as well as the meeting itself.

Victoria Nourse, law professor, Georgetown University
The emails are clear evidence of intent that the campaign was prepared to ask for support from a foreign government. Campaign finance rules are complex, but this rule is not: Any seasoned campaign professional would have called 1-800-FBI at the point someone suggested this. At the very least, the emails are sufficient evidence for a prosecutor to take the case to a grand jury to determine whether they violated campaign finance laws — you can't "solicit" from a foreign government for money or "anything of value."

Under the criminal law, solicit means asking, so if you ask someone to murder someone else, that is a crime even if no one is murdered. Similarly here, if you ask someone to violate the campaign finance laws, even if the do not come forth with anything, that is a crime.

Samuel Gross, law professor, University of Michigan
This is beginning to look a lot like a criminal conspiracy. Nobody's guilty in this country until a jury is convinced by proof beyond a reasonable doubt — but you can be indicted on less evidence than this.

Brandon Garrett, law professor, University of Virginia
The portion of the email chain noting that this was a “Russian government attorney” suggests knowledge that they intended to get something from a foreign source and that it was in the nature of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary.”

The emails also provide evidence of intent to obtain something of value from a foreign individual or entity. And that thing of value does not just have to be a campaign donation to be illegal; it can be “anything of value.”

This is the type of smoking-gun evidence that prosecutors prize.

Jens David Ohlin, law professor, Cornell University
I think this changes the conversation completely. It’s now established that the campaign was aware of, and involved in, Russian attempts to meddle in the election. The only question now is whether President Trump was personally involved or not. But the question of the campaign’s involvement now appears answered (in the affirmative). For Donald Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner, the relevant legal category is conspiracy.

Shall I keep going?

[TZucchini]

No we don't America should be working with Russia not against it for unknown reasons. Our government has betrayed us by being against Russia when the threats are isis and n korea

The Trump's are doing a right thing and a service to the people.

ISIS? Is that a joke? How exactly are they threatening the United States? They can't even hold a city in Iraq.

[Grapemask]

No we don't America should be working with Russia not against it for unknown reasons. Our government has betrayed us by being against Russia when the threats are isis and n korea

The Trump's are doing a right thing and a service to the people.

Got to be sarcasm. Right? ... right?

[TZucchini]

Got to be sarcasm. Right? ... right?

The real threats are actually brown people, educated liberals, CNN, globalists, and of course, the Clinton's.

[Noxx79]

Keep bleating sheep...keep bleating.

Why are you talking to yourself? You can use a mirror for that.

[Machismo]

No we don't America should be working with Russia not against it for unknown reasons. Our government has betrayed us by being against Russia when the threats are isis and n korea

The Trump's are doing a right thing and a service to the people.

This coming from a guy who supports slavery...

[ati87]

Having someone in office that you can "gently" remind he owes you his ass and position of power is much more valuable.

Ryan would not be considered legitimate by many, and already isn't liked by most. He'd be a lame duck.

Pence would be much the same way, but at least he could use whatever power he has left to pull in favors.

Do they care thought.

We are talking about the party that wrote a healthcare bill (a huge chunk of the economy) behind closed doors and approved it without anybody able to read it.

[TZucchini]

Oxymoron....it's what's for dinner.

Ouchies my feelings! I'm offended...

[Machismo]

Oh I do? Please link all of my "fake news" posts.

Very well:

"What a shocker..CNN peddling more fake shit then retracting it. They are really starting to make Breitbart look good."

"So opinion pieces are all opinion and have no factual information listed in them? Interesting, but not surprising, that you would think that.

So are you claiming the YouTube video is fake? lol

Again, discrediting one doesn't absolve the other...I thought we went over this already. You claim CNN is a credible news company, which I can prove to you is false. But something...something...something...BREITBART!"

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...mate-Punchline

"The Washington Times would like a word with you.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ery-fake-news/

And if that isn't enough for you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXZzwwUVpWk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies"

"They are trying to steal the fake news crown from CNN I see..."

And you have even asked for people to provide you with examples in the past:

"Please point us in the direction of all my "fake news" claims.....i'll wait."

"Fake news! Make America Great Again! This is gunna be huuuuge!

Does that about cover it for you? It's funny how you can sit there and cry about me "deflecting" when all I've done is call out the hypocrisy and bullshit many of you spew. Sorry that most of your political affiliations happen to concern a donkey. You need to really think about what your saying, because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

You. Are. Welcome.

[Azadina]

What lies did the media make up about Trump?

Also curious as your definition of what "Fake News" is?

Suffice it to say, that he's the sort who has said Infowars to be one of the very few unbiased and honest news sources.

I trust that sums it up.

[Shalcker]

https://sidebarsblog.com/collusion-r...lection-crime/
It's an enormous post, but have fun. It's everything.

Thanks.

But this goes into "hypotheticals", not actual content of Trump Jr emails. "Suppose Trump campaign conspired with Russians to help them hack systems", "Suppose Trump campaign tried to evade US campaign finance laws with Russians", "Suppose Trump campaign conspired to interfere with voting with Russians"... not what actually applicable in Trump Jr case specifically. Even adds in the end "Once again, for the record: I’m not saying any of these crimes took place. I’m not suggesting that anyone will be charged, or should be charged. As with any criminal case, everything is going to depend on the facts and what evidence the government can present."

Now I'll look into other links.