Oops, looks like Don Jr is going to prison.

[Kentonio]

What crime did he commit by taking the meeting?

Here you go..

"Trump Jr. had already admitted in a statement that he took the meeting with the Russian attorney, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get useful information on Hillary Clinton. His defense of his actions was that the meeting didn’t bear fruit: that “it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” In other words, there’s no way this constituted meaningful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because Veselnitskaya didn’t provide him with anything useful.

But experts on national security and election law say this “defense” is, legally speaking, no defense at all.

“The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”

Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime

 

[bhsmte]

Here you go..

"Trump Jr. had already admitted in a statement that he took the meeting with the Russian attorney, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get useful information on Hillary Clinton. His defense of his actions was that the meeting didn’t bear fruit: that “it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” In other words, there’s no way this constituted meaningful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because Veselnitskaya didn’t provide him with anything useful.

But experts on national security and election law say this “defense” is, legally speaking, no defense at all.

“The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”

Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime

Since Clinton paid for the dossier that was obtained through Russian contacts, would the same apply to her campaign?

 

[Kentonio]

Since Clinton paid for the dossier that was obtained through Russian contacts, would the same apply to her campaign?

Oh but Clinton!!! Seriously, do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Half of liberals never really liked her in the first place, and she's been out of politics for over a year now, yet whenever a conversation gets tough you can guarantee that the cry of 'Clinton!' will be heard loud and clear.

 

[cow451]

Since Clinton paid for the dossier that was obtained through Russian contacts, would the same apply to her campaign?

Maybe they can do house arrest together, Comrade.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh but Clinton!!! Seriously, do you guys ever listen to yourselves? Half of liberals never really liked her in the first place, and she's been out of politics for over a year now, yet whenever a conversation gets tough you can guarantee that the cry of 'Clinton!' will be heard loud and clear.

Can you answer the question?

 

[Kentonio]

Can you answer the question?

I have absolutely no interest in your strawman question. If she's committed a crime, then she'll go to jail with the rest of them. I really couldn't care in the slightest.

 

[bhsmte]

I have absolutely no interest in your strawman question. If she's committed a crime, then she'll go to jail with the rest of them. I really couldn't care in the slightest.

I was asking if her campaign paying a guy to get dirt on Trump from the Russians (which actually happened by the way, there is no evidence Donny Jr. ever got anything from the Russians), would be the same issue in your opinion?

And let me ask again, do you believe this same Russian attorney, who has been quoted as saying the dossier is all garbage?

 

[Kentonio]

I was asking if her campaign paying a guy to get dirt on Trump from the Russians (which actually happened by the way, there is no evidence Donny Jr. ever got anything from the Russians), would be the same issue in your opinion?

It makes absolutely no difference whether Don Jr got anything or not, he committed a crime and we already have the public evidence to prove it. Your attempts to deflect away from that with the ‘Hillary!’ stuff that’s been debunked about a hundred times already this week is just repetitive.

 

[bhsmte]

It makes absolutely no difference whether Don Jr got anything or not, he committed a crime and we already have the public evidence to prove it. Your attempts to deflect away from that with the ‘Hillary!’ stuff that’s been debunked about a hundred times already this week is just repetitive.

It has been debunked that Clinton paid for the dossier, that got dirt on Trump from Russian sources? And this dossier was given to the FBI and leaked to the media?

Furthermore, the same Russian attorney you posted an article about, claims the dossier is garbage.

Your level of bias cracks me up.

 

[FenderTL5]

Since Clinton paid for the dossier that was obtained through Russian contacts, would the same apply to her campaign?

if so, wouldn't several of Trump's early GOP rivals be on the same hook since it was initially sought and funded by them as opposition research for the GOP primaries, only later picked up by the DNC post primaries?

 

[bhsmte]

if so, wouldn't several of Trump's early GOP rivals be on the same hook since it was initially sought and funded by them as opposition research for the GOP primaries, only later picked up by the DNC post primaries?

Could be, it all depends whether asking Russians for dirt on Trump is a crime. It appears Donny Jr. took a meeting with the sought of maybe getting dirt and the Clinton campaign hired someone to get dirt from the Russians. The only difference is, we know the Clinton efforts did in fact obtain alleged dirt on Trump and this dirt was given to the FBI and the media.

 

[FenderTL5]

Could be, it all depends whether asking Russians for dirt on Trump is a crime..

Maybe it's not "the dirt" that is the problem, but what was offered in exchange.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe it's not "the dirt" that is the problem, but what was offered in exchange.

Well, we know it was money for the dossier and I have yet to see evidence on anything Donny Jr. may have offered. It could be there, I just have not seen it as of yet.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

My guess is that they won't charge Don Jr. Until they get everything needed. I'm sure They know. That every thing Don Jr did, was because his father had him do it. I'm sure Trump has always played dirty in his business developments. That's how the rich get richer. Also I don't much will happen anyways. I think this stuff always happens in politics.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Since this is 3 months ago and there's still no prosecution, charges, or action it doesn't really look like anyone is going to prison.

No one can be prosecuted if the FBI would apply the same standard they did for HRC.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why the change?

New orders from her handler.

 

[bhsmte]

New orders from her handler.

There you go.

Putin's goal all along, was to get dirt out there on both Clinton and Trump. Putin wants the american public with low confidence in their leaders and political parties fighting with each other and that is exactly what he has.

 

[FireDragon76]

Putin wanted revenge on Clinton because Russia has an antagonistic relationship with the Clinton family, esp. when she was Secretary of State and criticized the invasion of Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Russia.

 

[bhsmte]

Putin wanted revenge on Clinton because Russia has an antagonistic relationship with the Clinton family, esp. when she was Secretary of State and criticized the invasion of Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Russia.

I am sure he did. Putin also wants both parties in power, to be exposed and for the public to lose trust in them. He doesn't want, one party to be strong, he wants both to be weak.

 

[NotreDame]

Here you go..

"Trump Jr. had already admitted in a statement that he took the meeting with the Russian attorney, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, to get useful information on Hillary Clinton. His defense of his actions was that the meeting didn’t bear fruit: that “it quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.” In other words, there’s no way this constituted meaningful collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia because Veselnitskaya didn’t provide him with anything useful.

But experts on national security and election law say this “defense” is, legally speaking, no defense at all.

“The emails are simply put damning as a legal matter,” explains Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department special counsel and current editor of the legal site Just Security. “The text of the emails provide very clear evidence of participation in a scheme to involve the Russian government in federal election interference, in a form that is prohibited by federal criminal law.”

Jens David Ohlin, a law professor at Cornell University, is even blunter: “It’s a shocking admission of a criminal conspiracy.”

Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime

It is unfathomable to find myself in disagreement with people labeled as “legal expert.” After all, such a noble title and designation clearly establishes their opinion as absolute truth and only fools dare challenge them. But, at the time this article was disclosed to the public, there were insufficient facts to substantiate the “legal experts” claims. To my knowledge, the status quo persists, there are insufficient facts to support the opinion of the “legal experts” treated as Greek gods. Like the Greek gods, they can just as easily be shown to not reside on mount Olympus and their opinion not ineluctable.

A key element is “contribution or donation.” The phrase, for purposes of relevance to the dialogue, is construed as “money or other thing of value" in relation to a campaign. To know whether the info would constitute as “other thing of value” logically requires analysis of the information. If the info was so minimally damaging, embarrassing but not useful, then it’s very questionable the info is a “thing of value.”

At the time the article was composed, as I recall, there weren’t any facts revealing to the public the precise and accurate nature of the info. I’m not aware of any facts today that support the “legal experts” claims.

One final point to address. Very crudely he may have conspired to violate the statute, but this legal theory is also difficult to properly validate on the basis of so few facts.

The “legal experts” arrived at a hasty conclusion.