Foreign “opposition research” okay— President Trump

[NotreDame]

Yet you aren’t going to share any of that with us. LOL.

No. That’s the point. The point I’m making is too many people have just concluded Weintraub’s letter is correct. On what basis is she correct? Apparently, on nothing more than she said it, and it is politically expedient to accept her view.

However, I did allude to some of the assumptions made by Weintrau in post number 96 and referred to another source, the Mueller report, that expressed some uncertainty about the very issue Weintraub assumes as concrete in her letter.

 

[rambot]

Well, it was pointless until Essentialsaltes pursued the matter with the query Essentialsaltes posed.

But the hypotheticals are not entirely pointless, or mine was not, as they served to illuminate how and why Brian Hart's conduct could have implicated the statute in a similar manner as Trump's conduct, ostensibly that was necessary, since some posters here do not have any idea how the statute operates.

Which I pause to add that arguably, which is to say a decent argument can be made, that the facts surrounding the Steele dossier violated 52 U.S.C. 30121. I do no think such an argument is ineluctable, without more facts, but an argument can be made, just as a decent argument can be made Donald Trump Jr. violated the statute with the Trump Tower meeting, although that argument is also no ineluctable.

If the information were confirmed by an American source, then this whole debate is moot though right?

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review
This Thread is
Permanently Closed
RV: Flaming and Goading

MOD HAT OFF​