Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
You seem to have an inflated sense of your own importance.
Click to expand...


You seem to be completely unashamed of yourself for attempting to defend this, but like Trump himself, the Party of Trump is completely shameless. That is why it must be burned to the ground
 
Ziggurat said:
They agreed to listen to the Russians. I don't see how you can criminalize listening.
Click to expand...

Exactly. From the e-mail to Don Jr.: "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump..." They also may have talked about the Marvel comic universe.

So... let's suppose that sometime around the Tower meeting that Donald Trump did learn the Russian government hacked his political opponents' e-mails and intended to use the theft for the benefit of the presumptive Republican nominee, which would in turn benefit Russia through better relations/sanctions relief/etc.

In your view, would this be illegal? Would any of his actions that later followed, such as firing James Comey, be illegal? Apart from legal or illegal, would you regard Trump's actions as morally negligible, morally serious, or something in between?
 
Ziggurat said:
This is just perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you appreciate it. Now personally, I wouldn't say that describes your posts at all. I think they are much more craven. You understand the difference between right and wrong.

You know what the Trump campaign did was criminal and treasonous, you just don't care. If Hillary's campaign had done what Trump's did you would be screaming your 'lock her up chant'. I know it and so do you.
 
Cain said:
So... let's suppose that sometime around the Tower meeting that Donald Trump did learn the Russian government hacked his political opponents' e-mails and intended to use the theft for the benefit of the presumptive Republican nominee, which would in turn benefit Russia through better relations/sanctions relief/etc.

In your view, would this be illegal?
Click to expand...

If Trump had nothing to do with the initial theft, then the subsequent dissemination is probably legal. The press regularly takes advantage of this distinction, as does Wikileaks.

Would any of his actions that later followed, such as firing James Comey, be illegal?
Click to expand...

No, it would not be illegal. I don't think you can criminalize the exercise of a legitimate presidential power. That seems like a clear constitutional violation of the separation of powers, granting Congress the ability to interfere with the executive in such a manner.

Apart from legal or illegal, would you regard Trump's actions as morally negligible, morally serious, or something in between?
Click to expand...

It's potentially morally serious, depending on the details. But it's also just speculation.
 
Ziggurat said:
They agreed to listen to the Russians. I don't see how you can criminalize listening.
Click to expand...

If I say that I have some stolen information that I am willing to sell you, and I am the representative of an unfriendly foreign nation, then yes, agreeing to listen to the offer can be illegal.
 
jimbob said:
If I say that I have some stolen information that I am willing to sell you, and I am the representative of an unfriendly foreign nation, then yes, agreeing to listen to the offer can be illegal.
Click to expand...

Have you ever watched any movies or TV shows where the cops engage in a sting operation? Have you noticed how the cops always wait until the transaction takes place?

There's a reason for that.
 
jimbob said:
If I say that I have some stolen information that I am willing to sell you, and I am the representative of an unfriendly foreign nation, then yes, agreeing to listen to the offer can be illegal.
Click to expand...

Intellectual Property.

Note the Trade Secrets in the attached picture.

My company has confidential information. Those include trade secrets, such as what we know about our own operations, our customers, and our competitors, that if that information got out, would either harm us or no longer be of value. These actually can be estimated in value and accounted.
 

Attachments

  • ip-954x1024.jpg
    ip-954x1024.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Have you ever watched any movies or TV shows where the cops engage in a sting operation? Have you noticed how the cops always wait until the transaction takes place?

There's a reason for that.
Click to expand...

The reason is to make people think money has to change hands before they can get busted when they go off and crime IRL. Criminals are stupid, they just assume it works like on TV, using exactly your logic. It doesn't and has never worked that way.

Also if you ask someone if they're a cop, they DON'T actually have to tell you.
 
acbytesla said:
What gets me the most is this absurd attempt to pretend that this meeting was no big deal and is political SOP. IT WAS A CRIME. No ifs or buts, it was illegal and was treasonous. Any so called patriot would actually know this without being told. They wouldn't equivocate if offered dirt from a hostile foreign government, they would be on the phone to the FBI immediately.

Trump supporters simply tossed their loyalty to the nation in exchange for a cultish crush on the sleaziest con man imaginable. It would be amusing if it wasn't so serious.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, none of us are lawyers specializing in this area of law, so there are a lot of ifs ands or buts. Your reading of the law is that it was a crime. Fine. But there is a lot of gray area when you read actual expert opinion in the media.

The best anyone can say is, "maybe." This is because we are not privy to the actual details of the meeting. If and when Mueller indicts Trump, many of those legal questions will start to have answers. For you to make such a blanket statement at this point is indicative of nothing more than your own opinion. I'm interested in what we know right now, which seems to be, "not much." I'm interested in what the facts show, not tribal warfare. I'll leave the tribal warfare to those interested in such.
 
WilliamSeger said:
You seem to be completely unashamed of yourself for attempting to defend this, but like Trump himself, the Party of Trump is completely shameless. That is why it must be burned to the ground
Click to expand...

I believe the shame belongs to those that cannot separate legal issues from personal politics.
While we're on the subject of name and shame I'd point out that when it was thought that Clinton was the guarenteed winner in the election any mention of russian meddling or the like was construed as Trump being a sore loser. Only when his win took place was it then construed that he had to have colluded and this entire fire storm became an issue... and that any attempt to view matters from the strict legal standpoint became an issue of shameful behavior.

I don't favor trump much myself but posts like this get ridiculous for being completely substanceless.

There is evidence of their trying to influence the elections, but whether Trump took a serious role in substantial collusion to ruin the election integrity has yet to be established... although you do have solicitation meetings for oppo research that can be looked into that doesnt seem to be going anywhere at the moment
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
The reason is to make people think money has to change hands before they can get busted when they go off and crime IRL. Criminals are stupid, they just assume it works like on TV, using exactly your logic. It doesn't and has never worked that way.

Also if you ask someone if they're a cop, they DON'T actually have to tell you.
Click to expand...

I have seen many videos of prostitution stings all over the country with female cops posing as hookers.

They NEVER wait for money to exchange hands. Merely an offer and the intent to accept the offer is necessary. So if the hooker says it's a $100 for a blowjob and the John goes to her motel, they bust them. No need to verbally agree, no need to pull out a wallet.
 
xjx388 said:
AFAIK, none of us are lawyers specializing in this area of law, so there are a lot of ifs ands or buts. Your reading of the law is that it was a crime. Fine. But there is a lot of gray area when you read actual expert opinion in the media.

The best anyone can say is, "maybe." This is because we are not privy to the actual details of the meeting. If and when Mueller indicts Trump, many of those legal questions will start to have answers. For you to make such a blanket statement at this point is indicative of nothing more than your own opinion. I'm interested in what we know right now, which seems to be, "not much." I'm interested in what the facts show, not tribal warfare. I'll leave the tribal warfare to those interested in such.
Click to expand...

No there is not. I know LOTS and LOTS of lawyers and cops and this has been discussed endlessly. I don't know one that thinks this wasn't a crime.

It was a crime committed by the campaign people who attended that meeting. The only question is what was Trump's Sr.s involvement? What did he know and when did he know it? One could argue that he has plausible deniability. I just don't think it's all that plausible.
 
LSSBB said:
Receipt and dissemination of stolen property are both illegal.
Click to expand...

From your source:

A trade secret owner can enforce rights against someone who steals confidential information by asking a court to issue an order (an injunction) preventing further disclosure or use of the secrets. A trade secret owner can also collect damages for any economic injury suffered as a result of the trade secret's improper acquisition and use.

...

In addition, the trade secret owner must show that the information was either improperly acquired by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of making commercial use of the secret) or improperly disclosed by the defendant (if the defendant is accused of leaking the information).
​

The recipient of a trade secret is only in potential trouble if they use that trade secret. So no, merely receiving that information is not enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom