Oops, looks like Don Jr is going to prison.

[Kentonio]

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.

To be fair, it didn’t just say ‘legal expert’, it quoted directly from a former Defense Department special counsel and a law professor from Cornell. Those both seem pretty solid legal experts to me. Perhaps you disagree though.

 

[bhsmte]

To be fair, it didn’t just say ‘legal expert’, it quoted directly from a former Defense Department special counsel and a law professor from Cornell. Those both seem pretty solid legal experts to me. Perhaps you disagree though.

Even highly educated experts, can have bias, which shades their judgment.

 

[Kentonio]

Even highly educated experts, can have bias, which shades their judgment.

Sure they can. Do we know of any bias in these cases?

 

[bhsmte]

Sure they can. Do we know of any bias in these cases?

NotreDame pointed it out. There are far too many unanswered questions to conclude what your experts have concluded. To make those conclusions prematurely, would indicate they have a predetermined bias.

 

[camille70]

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.

I've not seen it reported that anyone other than Fusion GPS knew who was doing the grunt work, so to my knowledge neither Clinton or her lawyer were aware.

Don Jr was told the Russian Government wanted to help him out and he was Gung ho for the assistance.


11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

 

[Kentonio]

NotreDame pointed it out. There are far too many unanswered questions to conclude what your experts have concluded. To make those conclusions prematurely, would indicate they have a predetermined bias.

Or they just think the evidence clearly displays a crime, like they said.

 

[bhsmte]

I've not seen it reported that anyone other than Fusion GPS knew who was doing the grunt work, so to my knowledge neither Clinton or her lawyer were aware.

Don Jr was told the Russian Government wanted to help him out and he was Gung ho for the assistance.


11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

Agree, but if the claim is true that someone connected with Clinton was feeding Steele information, that would shed a different light.

Not sure you can prosecute Donny, without actually obtaining any information and or, giving anything in return for the same.

It would be similar to what happened to Clinton, careless, but no prosecutor would prosecute.

 

[bhsmte]

Or they just think the evidence clearly displays a crime, like they said.

Need a lot of holes filled in, to determine whether a crime was committed.

 

[NotreDame]

Or they just think the evidence clearly displays a crime, like they said.

Really? Pray tell how the evidence “clearly displays a crime” when there were not any sufficient facts then and no facts now to evaluate the information the Russians supposedly possessed. If it is so “clear” then those facts shouldn’t be arcane or esoteric.

And they cited no facts supporting their assumption the information the Russians had would qualify as a “thing of value.” None.

You’re impressed with labels. Evidence impresses me. Logical reasoning impresses me.

Their claim was hastily made.

 

[Kentonio]

Really? Pray tell how the evidence “clearly displays a crime” when there were not any sufficient facts then and no facts now to evaluate the information the Russians supposedly possessed. If it is so “clear” then those facts shouldn’t be arcane or esoteric.

And they cited no facts supporting their assumption the information the Russians had would qualify as a “thing of value.” None.

You’re impressed with labels. Evidence impresses me. Logical reasoning impresses me.

Their claim was hastily made.

Or potentially their reading of the law could turn out to be the accurate one. They are far from the first legal experts to say that what’s Don Jr did was clear criminal conduct. At the same time I’m sure others like yourself disagree. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what Mueller and the courts say.

 

[NotreDame]

To be fair, it didn’t just say ‘legal expert’, it quoted directly from a former Defense Department special counsel and a law professor from Cornell. Those both seem pretty solid legal experts to me. Perhaps you disagree though.

Oh, if labels and titles just magically made claims true!

Being a “lawyer” doesn’t render one an “expert” in this area of the law. Being a law professor doesn’t render one an “expert” in this area of the law.

Neither am I impressed that the author of the article or Vox summarily declared those two attorneys as “experts.” What was their basis for concluding those two are “experts”? How is the author or Vox qualified to designate those two as experts?

I have a suggestion, neither the author of the article or Vox has a freaking clue as to whether these two are experts, much less any sense of what would be required to render those two as experts. Rather, the label of “expert” was adopted into the title as an attempt to give their article the appearance of legitimacy. Of course, this cute rhetorical ploy works, as the word “expert” is guaranteed to seize people’s attention and few would give much thought as to the legitimacy of the label.

Neither am I impressed with your ability to call them “experts.” You, along with 300 million other Americans, can easily declare anyone an “expert,” effectively eroding any meaningful definition of the word. Once upon a time, the word “expert” had a precise and useful meaning, indeed it has one in the legal field, but the today the word “expert” can be translated to mean “this person in X field expressed an opinion I agree with, so he’s an expert.”

I’m not sure what qualifications, if any, you possess to properly evaluate and determine whether someone is an “expert” in some legal area. I’m equally unaware of your basis of knowledge and of the facts you relied upon to believe they are “experts.” For you, titles they once had or presently possess is sufficient to be an “expert.”

I am unsure how, exactly, being a former Defense Department special counsel makes one an “expert” in election law. After all, his former occupational position was Defense Dept. special counsel, and if his job duty was drafting defense contracts and litigating them under contract law, then this hardly tells me he is an “expert” in election law. His former occupation doesn’t render him an “expert.”

Same rationale is applicable to the “law professor from Cornell.”

However, one doesn’t have to be an “expert” of anything to know there is a shortage of facts precluding any firm conclusion the info the Russians had and may have offered to Trump Jr. was a “thing of value.”

I’m not impressed by labels. I’m less impressed with the ease at which anyone can be called an “expert” and the ease with which the word “expert” can be invoked any anyone.

I’m impressed by evidence. I’m impressed by logical and rational thought. I’m impressed by cogent argument.

You can have your labels. I’ll argue facts, evidence, and reasoning.

Let me know when mere labels demonstrates a claim as correct.

 

[NotreDame]

Or potentially their reading of the law could turn out to be the accurate one. They are far from the first legal experts to say that what’s Don Jr did was clear criminal conduct. At the same time I’m sure others like yourself disagree. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what Mueller and the courts say.

Do you even understand what my disagreement is over? I’ll help you out. My disagreement isn’t over whether Trump Jr. could have potentially violated the statute cited in the Vox article. He may have in fact violated the statute. He may not have violated the statute. My disagreement is over whether there are enough facts to assuredly conclude, as these esteemed two “experts” have, that Trump Jr violated the statute. I contend there isn’t, specifically in regards to a particular element of the statute cited at Vox.

And their reading of the law isn’t in dispute and neither is it an issue. The issue is whether a particular element of the statute, an element of the offense, is supported by any facts. Do you understand this point? Interpretation of the law isn’t necessarily at issue, yet.

This isn’t a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter if other alleged “experts” have the same view when evaluating whether their claim is correct.

And this is rather simple. You’ve said nothing about the substance of the argument but have spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over the fancy label of “expert” and counting the numbers of heads of the experts on one side of the debate.

It’s simple. For Trump Jr. to have violated the law requires him, inter alia, to A.) solicit a contribution or donation B.) contrition or donation understood to mean money or thing of value.

The “experts” assume the info Russia had and was offering was “money” or a “thing of value.” But in criminal law, one cannot merely assume some element of the offense is present. Facts are necessary to prove each element of the offense.

My point is there wasn’t any known facts establishing the info to be potentially shared was “money” or a “thing of value.” Indeed, the Vox article cites to no facts demonstrating the info was money or a “thing of value.”

Similarly, the two “experts” in the Vox article spend zero time, offer a zero analysis, and invoke no facts, demonstrating the info to potentially be shared was “money” or a “thing of value.” The two “experts” spent no time addressing this element of the statute.

The two “experts” talk about the email exchange and how Trump Jr was interested in “dirt” on Hillary. But this isn’t enough to constitute as a crime under the cited statute. The “dirt” must be “money” or “thing of value.” They spend no time explaining or arguing why the info, the “dirt” was either “money” or a “thing of value.”

For instance, if the “dirt” is Hillary has $500 in unpaid fines for failing to pick up her dog’s fecal dumps in Central Park, then this arguably isn’t info that is a “thing of value” to anyone, except maybe those people who were sued in small claims by the city to collect similar unpaid fines.

My point is it isn’t at all clear Trump Jr violated this law, as one element of the offense isn’t presently supported by any facts.

 

[camille70]

Agree, but if the claim is true that someone connected with Clinton was feeding Steele information, that would shed a different light.

Not sure you can prosecute Donny, without actually obtaining any information and or, giving anything in return for the same.

It would be similar to what happened to Clinton, careless, but no prosecutor would prosecute.

He didn't get anything at the meeting, but intent matters. If you show up to a meeting knowingly expecting an underage child, and it's a police officer, the argument that you aren't guilty because you didn't meet a child won't get you off the hook.

Also, it can be argued that they did give the Russians something. They've refused to enforce sanctions against them, something they reported attempted to get rid of the first week until congress passed legislation that he didn't want to sign and is now refusing to implement. They aren't being transparent in their Russia dealings and have refused to state how or why a Russia citizen who was sanction was allowed into the US the other week, along with Russia intelligence agents.

 

[NotreDame]

I've not seen it reported that anyone other than Fusion GPS knew who was doing the grunt work, so to my knowledge neither Clinton or her lawyer were aware.

Don Jr was told the Russian Government wanted to help him out and he was Gung ho for the assistance.


11 CFR 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

Read the statute. It isn’t at all clear Trump Jr violated this law.

There has been no showing the info the Russians had constituted as a “contribution or donation,” which is defined as “money” or a “thing of value.”

If the info the Russians had wasn’t “money” or a “thing of value” then Trump Jr. didn’t violate the law.

 

[camille70]

Read the statute. It isn’t at all clear Trump Jr violated this law.

There has been no showing the info the Russians had constituted as a “contribution or donation,” which is defined as “money” or a “thing of value.”

If the info the Russians had wasn’t “money” or a “thing of value” then Trump Jr. didn’t violate the law.

Yeah I think it would have to be hashed out in court, but some consider information a thing of value, and opposition research is normally something campaigns pay for.

 

[Allandavid]

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

I think the key is whether or not a law was broken. Clearly, assisting a foreign power to interfere in your electoral process is illegal. What illegality is found in paying for research on your opponent?

 

[Yarddog]

If true and can be confirmed, he would be in deep weeds.

Thing is, I have seen several interviews from this Russian lawyer and she never said anything like this before. Why the change?

It's an old story from Nov. 2017.

 

[Hank77]

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

That's actually an interesting question.
Fusion GPS started an investigation into Trump for another client, Singer, and hired Steele. Clinton started paying Fusion after Singer pull out. There were no payments directly to Steele. So technically Clinton wasn't paying a foreigner for information. Maybe that's not relevant though.

 

[Kentonio]

Oh, if labels and titles just magically made claims true!

Being a “lawyer” doesn’t render one an “expert” in this area of the law. Being a law professor doesn’t render one an “expert” in this area of the law.

Neither am I impressed that the author of the article or Vox summarily declared those two attorneys as “experts.” What was their basis for concluding those two are “experts”? How is the author or Vox qualified to designate those two as experts?

I have a suggestion, neither the author of the article or Vox has a freaking clue as to whether these two are experts, much less any sense of what would be required to render those two as experts. Rather, the label of “expert” was adopted into the title as an attempt to give their article the appearance of legitimacy. Of course, this cute rhetorical ploy works, as the word “expert” is guaranteed to seize people’s attention and few would give much thought as to the legitimacy of the label.

Neither am I impressed with your ability to call them “experts.” You, along with 300 million other Americans, can easily declare anyone an “expert,” effectively eroding any meaningful definition of the word. Once upon a time, the word “expert” had a precise and useful meaning, indeed it has one in the legal field, but the today the word “expert” can be translated to mean “this person in X field expressed an opinion I agree with, so he’s an expert.”

I’m not sure what qualifications, if any, you possess to properly evaluate and determine whether someone is an “expert” in some legal area. I’m equally unaware of your basis of knowledge and of the facts you relied upon to believe they are “experts.” For you, titles they once had or presently possess is sufficient to be an “expert.”

I am unsure how, exactly, being a former Defense Department special counsel makes one an “expert” in election law. After all, his former occupational position was Defense Dept. special counsel, and if his job duty was drafting defense contracts and litigating them under contract law, then this hardly tells me he is an “expert” in election law. His former occupation doesn’t render him an “expert.”

Same rationale is applicable to the “law professor from Cornell.”

However, one doesn’t have to be an “expert” of anything to know there is a shortage of facts precluding any firm conclusion the info the Russians had and may have offered to Trump Jr. was a “thing of value.”

I’m not impressed by labels. I’m less impressed with the ease at which anyone can be called an “expert” and the ease with which the word “expert” can be invoked any anyone.

I’m impressed by evidence. I’m impressed by logical and rational thought. I’m impressed by cogent argument.

You can have your labels. I’ll argue facts, evidence, and reasoning.

Let me know when mere labels demonstrates a claim as correct.

Yes I would consider a Cornell law professor to be a more reliable source of information about law than some lawyer on a forum. Call me crazy if you will.

 

[Kentonio]

Do you even understand what my disagreement is over? I’ll help you out. My disagreement isn’t over whether Trump Jr. could have potentially violated the statute cited in the Vox article. He may have in fact violated the statute. He may not have violated the statute. My disagreement is over whether there are enough facts to assuredly conclude, as these esteemed two “experts” have, that Trump Jr violated the statute. I contend there isn’t, specifically in regards to a particular element of the statute cited at Vox.

And their reading of the law isn’t in dispute and neither is it an issue. The issue is whether a particular element of the statute, an element of the offense, is supported by any facts. Do you understand this point? Interpretation of the law isn’t necessarily at issue, yet.

This isn’t a popularity contest. It doesn’t matter if other alleged “experts” have the same view when evaluating whether their claim is correct.

And this is rather simple. You’ve said nothing about the substance of the argument but have spent an inordinate amount of time obsessing over the fancy label of “expert” and counting the numbers of heads of the experts on one side of the debate.

It’s simple. For Trump Jr. to have violated the law requires him, inter alia, to A.) solicit a contribution or donation B.) contrition or donation understood to mean money or thing of value.

The “experts” assume the info Russia had and was offering was “money” or a “thing of value.” But in criminal law, one cannot merely assume some element of the offense is present. Facts are necessary to prove each element of the offense.

My point is there wasn’t any known facts establishing the info to be potentially shared was “money” or a “thing of value.” Indeed, the Vox article cites to no facts demonstrating the info was money or a “thing of value.”

Similarly, the two “experts” in the Vox article spend zero time, offer a zero analysis, and invoke no facts, demonstrating the info to potentially be shared was “money” or a “thing of value.” The two “experts” spent no time addressing this element of the statute.

The two “experts” talk about the email exchange and how Trump Jr was interested in “dirt” on Hillary. But this isn’t enough to constitute as a crime under the cited statute. The “dirt” must be “money” or “thing of value.” They spend no time explaining or arguing why the info, the “dirt” was either “money” or a “thing of value.”

For instance, if the “dirt” is Hillary has $500 in unpaid fines for failing to pick up her dog’s fecal dumps in Central Park, then this arguably isn’t info that is a “thing of value” to anyone, except maybe those people who were sued in small claims by the city to collect similar unpaid fines.

My point is it isn’t at all clear Trump Jr violated this law, as one element of the offense isn’t presently supported by any facts.

Yes I understand the question, it’s not a new one, there are many articles debating the exact same point. Obviously to some people’s interpretation information can be considered an item of value. If you take that position then of course what was offered is indeed of value to the Trump campaign.

As for what that information comprised of, to my understanding that is rather irrelevant. What’s seems more important in terms of a conspiracy case would be what Don Jr et al believed was being offered, which was set out in the emails and was clearly valuable enough to them to arrange a meeting during a busy campaign.