Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Lurch]

To those who claim that the attempted collusion by Donnie Jr and co. carries no penalty if there was no receipt of the promised dirt...

Why does intent by itself not matter? The meeting was set up with the (now) undenied intention to get damaging info on Hillary, not to talk adoptions. The very act of setting up and attending the meeting is amply demonstrable evidence of the willingness to engage with a foreign actor in matters electoral, which at least someone in the Trump campaign would have known full well was illegal.

Perhaps it will require to prove that there was indeed receipt of information, or some 'payment' made, in order to indict. But if the matter of the shielding against foreign influence that is dangerous to the electoral process is considered of similar import as, say, selling state secrets, then the cheating bastages should have the book thrown at them. Or at least suffer more than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

 

[jimbob]

Another dishonest poster. My meaning was clear. When I said "pretty" unanimous, obviously I didn't include people outside the forum, or on different planets, or people who will defend Trump no matter what. Those last ones are beyond logic and reason, so I exclude them from pretty much everything. Also note the presence of the word "pretty", which indicates that there may be a few exceptions. But of course, like Cat, you pretended that it wasn't there, just like now you pretend to understand nothing of what's been posted.

Personally I would have preferred "unambiguously" instead of "unanimously"

But that's a quibble.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

To those who claim that the attempted collusion by Donnie Jr and co. carries no penalty if there was no receipt of the promised dirt...

Why does intent by itself not matter? The meeting was set up with the (now) undenied intention to get damaging info on Hillary, not to talk adoptions. The very act of setting up and attending the meeting is amply demonstrable evidence of the willingness to engage with a foreign actor in matters electoral, which at least someone in the Trump campaign would have known full well was illegal.

Perhaps it will require to prove that there was indeed receipt of information, or some 'payment' made, in order to indict. But if the matter of the shielding against foreign influence that is dangerous to the electoral process is considered of similar import as, say, selling state secrets, then the cheating bastages should have the book thrown at them. Or at least suffer more than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

Indeed. There could be no conspiracy laws if intention alone were not grounds for prosecution and conviction. Donnie Jr. is guilty by self-confession in his recent testimony. Donnie BigBoy is likely guilty of witness tampering to affect the outcome of an investigation, he being the author of the duplicitous letter explaining the meeting was only about adoptions. A criminal offense.

 

[The Don]

Indeed. There could be no conspiracy laws if intention alone were not grounds for prosecution and conviction. Donnie Jr. is guilty by self-confession in his recent testimony. Donnie BigBoy is likely guilty of witness tampering to affect the outcome of an investigation, he being the author of the duplicitous letter explaining the meeting was only about adoptions. A criminal offense.

Why do you hate America, why do you hate teh Russian orfanz ?

All Donald Trump Jnr wanted to do was have a one-on-one meeting with half a dozen Russians (and maybe a few colleagues) to make sure that poor ickle Russian orphans could come to the US - and you make this sound like a bad thing.

President Trump was just doing what any Dad would do if their son was caught attempting to acquire political dirt from an enemy power - provide advice and comfort to his son.

Look, there was no dirt to be found. I think we can all agree that if you break into a bank with the intention of robbing it but the vault proves to be empty then no real crime has been committed and even if a crime has been committed, the real victims are those people who have wasted their time and effort breaking into an empty vault.

 

[Aber]

I don't think, in my opinion, that he solicited that information. He didn't go out looking for it, it was offered to him. That's me being picky about terminology. This shouldn't surprise anyone who has interacted with me.

They wanted it, and they set the meeting with the expectation of receiving it...

You're walking a terribly fine line here.

Setting up a meeting with the expectation of getting something during the meeting, is not going out and looking for it?

 

[Belz...]

It's not even funny anymore. I actually feel pity.

I guess you would, in the absence of a counter-argument.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think, in my opinion, that he solicited that information. He didn't go out looking for it, it was offered to him. That's me being picky about terminology.

That's you playing games with terminology. One wonders why you keep doing so, but I'm sure you'll be back any minute to tell us how close you are to concluding that Trump did something wrong. You just need more. Ever more.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

They're both true. There's no conflict there.

They set the meeting up expecting damaging info about Clinton. What they got was a discussion about adoption.
Consider an analogy: I left the house around noon, to go to the gym. I ended up at the donut shop.

I see you accept Don Jr's self-serving statement regarding what took place in the meeting, despite all the contrary evidence.

How very "skeptical" of you.

PS - it's that kind of "skepticism" that paints you as "people who will defend Trump no matter what"

 

[sunmaster14]

To those who claim that the attempted collusion by Donnie Jr and co. carries no penalty if there was no receipt of the promised dirt...

Why does intent by itself not matter? The meeting was set up with the (now) undenied intention to get damaging info on Hillary, not to talk adoptions. The very act of setting up and attending the meeting is amply demonstrable evidence of the willingness to engage with a foreign actor in matters electoral, which at least someone in the Trump campaign would have known full well was illegal.

Perhaps it will require to prove that there was indeed receipt of information, or some 'payment' made, in order to indict. But if the matter of the shielding against foreign influence that is dangerous to the electoral process is considered of similar import as, say, selling state secrets, then the cheating bastages should have the book thrown at them. Or at least suffer more than the proverbial slap on the wrist.

Not only is not remotely illegal, but it is not even unethical in my book. You're taking a meeting to listen to what they have. Then you run it by your lawyers to see what you're allowed to do with it. Any campaign who thought there was a credible person with damaging information on their opponent would have taken the meeting.

Don Jr.'s stupidity is evidenced in two ways. First, he should have known the guy who set up the meeting was not credible. Second, he should have had a lower level staffer set up the meet with a trusted person not officially involved in the campaign. There are ways of getting the information without involving your campaign directly. And, of course, you can even use the information to guide you to get the same information legally. This is not rocket surgery, but the Trump campaign was so amateurish that they didn't even think of such obvious strategies that even local campaigns use. And that's another reason why there is almost certainly nothing there there. The Trump campaign was not sophisticated enough to do anything illegal that couldn't be discovered by an entire press corps and a special counsel digging for as long as they have been.

 

[sunmaster14]

I guess you would, in the absence of a counter-argument.

Sad.

 

[Belz...]

Sad.

Spoken like the Fuhrer himself.

 

[NoahFence]

I guess you would, in the absence of a counter-argument.

I think the counter argument is "nothing burger".

 

[varwoche]

What facts? Do you have any information regarding what was discussed in that meeting beyond what has been shared by those involved? Has anyone at all who was there suggested that the discussion was of anything other than the Magnitzky thingy?

What facts am I damning?

As has been explained ad nauseum, you're taking the words of a Donny Jr -- a person in the hot seat, a person who lied about the events at every turn -- and repeating them here as fact, never mind even an "according to " qualifier.

 

[NoahFence]

Not only is not remotely illegal, but it is not even unethical in my book. You're taking a meeting to listen to what they have. Then you run it by your lawyers to see what you're allowed to do with it. Any campaign who thought there was a credible person with damaging information on their opponent would have taken the meeting.

Not surprisingly, you have that in reverse. Talk to the lawyers first. Because it is illegal when that person represents a foreign government .

The Trump campaign was not sophisticated enough to do anything illegal that couldn't be discovered by an entire press corps and a special counsel digging for as long as they have been.

Agreed. This is stupid Watergate. That's why it's so infuriating when you people cry "nothing burger" at every possible moment. They are so frickin guilty it's not even funny.

What's really amazing is how many voters they fooled. That and how many supporters think the collusion was ok, such as yourself. Why is it ok? You still shy away from that question, just like you people do whenever you don't have a stock Fox or Britebart answer.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not surprisingly, you have that in reverse. Talk to the lawyers first. Because it is illegal when that person represents a foreign government .

That's ridiculous. It can't possibly be illegal to take a meeting. It's possible for that meeting, and particularly what was said in that meeting, to be an element in a conspiracy charge, but it would require an act, of which there is no evidence. Furthermore, you would have to prove causality between that meeting and the act (which is hard to do when the act didn't happen, or, if it did, came before the meeting). Also, I'm pretty sure a prosecutor would also have to show that the causality involved a "quid" offered for the act. That is nonexistent as well, unless you and varwoche want to keep harping on the alleged softening of pro-Ukraine language in the GOP platform, which is about as close to a nonexistence as you can get while still existing.

Agreed. This is stupid Watergate. That's why it's so infuriating when you people cry "nothing burger" at every possible moment. They are so frickin guilty it's not even funny.

You find it infuriating that "we people" think these are nothingburgers? How do you think we people feel when "you people" do little but insult us. "You people" do not argue in good faith. "You people" do not marshal facts and logic to make your case. Instead all "you people" do is call "us people" names and imply we're stupid or dishonest or evil.

What's really amazing is how many voters they fooled. That and how many supporters think the collusion was ok, such as yourself. Why is it ok? You still shy away from that question, just like you people do whenever you don't have a stock Fox or Britebart answer.

If Hillary were in Trump's position and had won the election with the same fact pattern that Trump has, how would "you people" be responding in this thread right now? I know it might be very painful, but try to be honest. I already know the answer because I've seen how "you people" acted in the Benghazi thread and the Hillary email thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Yea, "we people" wanted to use facts and stuff, if you'd recall. There is no dispute that this meeting was designed to collude with Russia to get dirt on Hillary.

Period.

 

[Crossbow]

I think the counter argument is "nothing burger".

Indeed so.

After all, I can just imagine the hand springs that Trump and the Trump lackeys would be doing if turned out that Chelsea Clinton meet with Russians (or any other foreign government) a few months before the 2016 election to discuss dirt on Trump.

 

[NoahFence]

Its just incredibly dishonest to still be harping on Benghazi after 7 investigations by her opponent found her cleared, yet those people are absolutely convinced there's nothing there in the collusion investigation, the 1st of which is still on going.

The hypocrisy is nauseating.

 

[Crossbow]

Yea, "we people" wanted to use facts and stuff, if you'd recall. There is no dispute that this meeting was designed to collude with Russia to get dirt on Hillary.

Period.

I have noticed that as well.

At first, from Trump on down, there were constant denials that there was any sort of linkage between Trump himself and the Russians, and that there was no linkage of any sort between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Now, the current rationale is that the Trump campaign would have colluded with the Russians if the Russians had anything worthwhile to collude about; but since the Russians did not have anything really good to collude about, then at best the Trump campaign is guilty of 'attempted collusion' as opposed to 'actual collusion'.

And for some reason, the Trump lackeys are now saying that attempted collusion is not an actual crime.

Ugh!

 

[d4m10n]

That's ridiculous. It can't possibly be illegal to take a meeting. It's possible for that meeting, and particularly what was said in that meeting, to be an element in a conspiracy charge, but it would require an act, of which there is no evidence. Furthermore, you would have to prove causality between that meeting and the act (which is hard to do when the act didn't happen, or, if it did, came before the meeting). Also, I'm pretty sure a prosecutor would also have to show that the causality involved a "quid" offered for the act.

Quid: We will help you win the election, with support from the Russian government.

Quo: You will attempt to loosen Magnitsky Act sanctions, so as to allow Russian oligarchs a freer hand in global markets.

Can we at least agree that striking such a deal (assuming that really happened) would indeed run afoul of federal election law, and require prosecution?