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

[Stacyhs]

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.

You are correct. Money does not have to be exchanged.

The crime of solicitation of prostitution occurs at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement. Solicitation is simply encouraging someone to commit a crime. It does not matter if the crime ends up being committed or not. An action to further an agreement can be most any act demonstrating a willingness to go through with the agreement, like withdrawing money from an ATM.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/prostitution.html

Solicitation of prostitution does not require a completed act of sexual conduct. The mere agreement or offer to complete a sexual act in exchange for a fee (i.e. money) is enough to support a solicitation charge.

https://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/solicitation-of-prostitution.htm

 

[Ziggurat]

The crime of solicitation of prostitution occurs at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement.

Which means if no agreement is reached, then no crime occurs.

 

[LSSBB]

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.

Are you sufficiently legally qualified in intellectual property to make that determination from my source by just selecting highlighted bits? I suggested a path that illustrates how receiving stolen intellectual property could be illegal. IANAL. You?

 

[Crossbow]

I didn't see a primary legal source for the claim that merely listening can be a crime.

I hope that 'Ziggurat' and the rest of you all who are participating in this discussion do not mind me chiming in, but I do see a detail that I think needs a bit of clarification ...

Specifically, 'Ziggurat' has been discussing things that Trump has done which are "illegal", while the other posters are pointing out things that Trump has done which are "wrong".

Accordingly, 'Ziggurat' is correct in pointing out that of this moment, Trump himself has not been caught/discovered of doing anything illegal. However, the other posters are also correct in pointing out a number of things that Trump has done which are wrong.

Therefore, I ask all concerned need to please keep in mind that an elected official can get into serious trouble for getting caught doing something that is illegal, getting caught for doing something that is wrong, or getting caught for doing something that is both illegal and wrong.

Thanks much.

 

[LSSBB]

I hope that 'Ziggurat' and the rest of you all who are participating in this discussion do not mind me chiming in, but I do see a detail that I think needs a bit of clarification ...

Specifically, 'Ziggurat' has been discussing things that Trump has done which are "illegal", while the other posters are pointing out things that Trump has done which are "wrong".

Accordingly, 'Ziggurat' is correct in pointing out that of this moment, Trump himself has not been caught/discovered of doing anything illegal. However, the other posters are also correct in pointing out a number of things that Trump has done which are wrong.

Therefore, I ask all concerned need to please keep in mind that an elected official can get into serious trouble for getting caught doing something that is illegal, getting caught for doing something that is wrong, or getting caught for doing something that is both illegal and wrong.

Thanks much.

In the case of Trump, his judge and jury sit in Congress.

 

[acbytesla]

Which means if no agreement is reached, then no crime occurs.

Wrong The moment they meet to discuss the acquisition of dirt from foregn nationals, they committed the crime. They demonstrated their agreement. Just because the Russians didn't deliver immediately doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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

Oh, I'm fine with separating legal issues -- like letting Mueller finish the damned investigation! -- from the "personal politics" of defending collusion with Russia while Trump kisses Putin's ass. And I claim the same right as everyone else here to post completely substanceless posts, some of which are intentionally ridiculous.

 

[Crossbow]

In the case of Trump, his judge and jury sit in Congress.

Quite true!

One of the fortunate events in history was having Democrats in charge of the House during the Watergate Affair. If the Republicans were in charge, then I expect that Nixon would have gotten away with his crimes and become a very rich former president.

By the same token, one of the bad events in history was having Republicans in charge of the House during the Lewinsky Affair which allowed them to use impeachment as a way to motivate their voting base.

However, hopefully the Democrats will be able to take the House come November and that would serve to restore some presidential accountability.

 

[acbytesla]

I hope that 'Ziggurat' and the rest of you all who are participating in this discussion do not mind me chiming in, but I do see a detail that I think needs a bit of clarification ...

Specifically, 'Ziggurat' has been discussing things that Trump has done which are "illegal", while the other posters are pointing out things that Trump has done which are "wrong".

Accordingly, 'Ziggurat' is correct in pointing out that of this moment, Trump himself has not been caught/discovered of doing anything illegal. However, the other posters are also correct in pointing out a number of things that Trump has done which are wrong.

Therefore, I ask all concerned need to please keep in mind that an elected official can get into serious trouble for getting caught doing something that is illegal, getting caught for doing something that is wrong, or getting caught for doing something that is both illegal and wrong.

Thanks much.

I think you are wrong. The meeting was very much both wrong and illegal. Now, there is the question of Trump's involvement. Manafort, Kushner and Don Jr. are clearly guilty of conspiracy to defraud the US. Trump Sr, may or may not be guilty depending on his involvement which at the moment is unclear.

Trump however, is guilty of obstruction for his actions post hoc.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Wrong The moment they meet to discuss the acquisition of dirt from foregn nationals, they committed the crime. They demonstrated their agreement. Just because the Russians didn't deliver immediately doesn't mean there wasn't an agreement.

Not according to staychs post

" at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement" is a position that the meeting to discuss is pre agreement.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you sufficiently legally qualified in intellectual property to make that determination from my source by just selecting highlighted bits?

My reading comprehension is sufficient to interpret the language of your source. And the language of your source makes clear that more than receipt of the information is required in order to take action against the recipient. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand it, you only need to read carefully.

If you want to argue that your own source is wrong, go ahead. But assuming that it is correct, the meaning is clear.

And just think for a moment of the implications of criminalizing the mere act of listening. Can you not understand the first amendment implications?

 

[acbytesla]

Not according to staychs post

" at the moment you agree to pay for sex, and take some action to further that agreement" is a position that the meeting to discuss is pre agreement.

The crimes are different but the intents are exactly

Prostitution is the solicitation and or agreement to exchange money for sex.

Accepting contributions from a foreign national is a crime just like exchanging money for sex. In both cases the johns showed up in a hotel room to receive what they wanted. BUSTED!

 

[Ziggurat]

Accepting contributions from a foreign national is a crime

This was not a "contribution" per US election law. It was speech. The idea that you can criminalize speech runs smack up against the 1st amendment.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The crimes are different but the intents are exactly

Prostitution is the solicitation and or agreement to exchange money for sex.

Accepting contributions from a foreign national is a crime just like exchanging money for sex. In both cases the johns showed up in a hotel room to receive what they wanted. BUSTED!

If you are listening to the proposition in the hotel room, you haven't agreed to it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The idea that you can criminalize speech runs smack up against the 1st amendment.

Not really. There are lots of things that are illegal to say.

 

[acbytesla]

If you are listening to the proposition in the hotel room, you haven't agreed to it.

WRONG. Don Jr etc agreed when he texted 'if it is what you say it is' and showed up with the gang to get it he agreed to the crime.

This is why the prostitution analogy is spot on. You don't have to get the blowjob to be guilty which in effect is what you are arguing. And we don't know if they didn't get the blowjob. We do know they were excited and willing for Natasha to get on her knees.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not really. There are lots of things that are illegal to say.

Yes really. The 1st amendment has few exceptions, which the courts have already established standards for. None of those exceptions apply here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

WRONG. Don Jr etc agreed when he texted 'if it is what you say it is' and showed up with the gang to get it he agreed to the crime.

This is why the prostitution analogy is spot on. You don't have to get the blowjob to be guilty which in effect is what you are arguing. And we don't know if they didn't get the blowjob. We do know they were excited and willing for Natasha to get on her knees.

I didn't get the impression staychs was considering that, but I could be wrong.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes really. The 1st amendment has few exceptions, which the courts have already established standards for. None of those exceptions apply here.

So you can criminalize speech? I'm confused.

 

[acbytesla]

This was not a "contribution" per US election law. It was speech. The idea that you can criminalize speech runs smack up against the 1st amendment.

Not really. There are lots of things that are illegal to say.

This is where Zig got really stupid.
It's a crime
to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.
to say you have a bomb in an airport
to lie to a federal agent or Congress
to say you're going to kill someone
to tell your friend insider information on publicly traded stocks.

The list goes on and on and on of speech that is a crime.