Oops, looks like Don Jr is going to prison.

[Liza B.]

“Russian Lawyer Says Trump Jr. Offered Her a Deal: Hillary Dirt for a Change to U.S. Law”

Russian Lawyer Says Trump Jr. Offered Her a Deal: Hillary Dirt for a Change to U.S. Law

Yeah this is not breaking news. Meanwhile there is actual breaking news on Schiff and Russians, not that anyone cares about that.

In short:

RUSSIANS!!!

It's all so ridiculous.

 

[Kentonio]

Yeah this is not breaking news. Meanwhile there is actual breaking news on Schiff and Russians, not that anyone cares about that.

In short:

RUSSIANS!!!

It's all so ridiculous.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[He is Risen 72]

Perhaps Fortune should be keeping track of Soros funded deep state Obama supporters and their Wall Street lackeys causing disruptions in the Stock Market and Americas economy instead of conjuring up lies spread by Clinton’s Russian friends.

 

[Allandavid]

Perhaps Fortune should be keeping track of Soros funded deep state Obama supporters and their Wall Street lackeys causing disruptions in the Stock Market and Americas economy instead of conjuring up lies spread by Clinton’s Russian friends.

Oh my.........!

 

[NotreDame]

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.

And the fact you cannot understand why this reasoning is flawed is the problem.

You aren’t crazy. But your reasoning doesn’t make any sense.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Well, now you are discussing “conspiracy” but you originally didn’t make an argument for conspiracy, and initially you referenced to an article, but the article you referenced, and the two attorneys cited in the article, never mentioned a conspiracy.

So, to refresh, you cite to an article that is quoting to two lawyers as to whether a specific criminal statute has been violated. Rather than actually discuss the substance, reasoning, and facts of their claims, you make a poor and illogical argument that mere labels declares them the winner. Stellar.

Now you want to also invoke a conspiracy theory. Is this your new theory? Trump Jr conspired to violate the statute?

Do you have any fancy people with labels to cite?

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Sure, that’s the argument to make, but no court has decided the issue.

Orin Kerr, whose legal forte is 4th Amendment jurisprudence, makes a very good argument that the phrase “money or other thing of value” is in reference to something capable of being converted into cash. He reaches this conclusion, in part, by use of the word “money” in the phrase that goes along with “other thing of value.”

You can read his argument here.

Twitter

 

[Kentonio]

Well, now you are discussing “conspiracy” but you originally didn’t make an argument for conspiracy, and initially you referenced to an article, but the article you referenced, and the two attorneys cited in the article, never mentioned a conspiracy.

So, to refresh, you cite to an article that is quoting to two lawyers as to whether a specific criminal statute has been violated. Rather than actually discuss the substance, reasoning, and facts of their claims, you make a poor and illogical argument that mere labels declares them the winner. Stellar.

Now you want to also invoke a conspiracy theory. Is this your new theory? Trump Jr conspired to violate the statute?

Do you have any fancy people with labels to cite?

I’m not a lawyer. I have no legal experience or knowledge with which to argue the fine details of this. Instead, recognizing my ignorance I bow to the expertise of people in the field who are highly qualified and capable of making such determinations. Experts. I also fully accept that different legal experts may have differing opinions on the matter, as its not something that has been ruled on yet.

From my layman’s understanding however, the issue is not whether Jr got something of value or just conspired to get something of value. Either would be a criminal act and he clearly tried. The question under debate is whether Russian government provided information intended to harm the electoral chances of a candidate is actually something legally considered ‘of value’. Thus the differing legal opinions.

 

[Rion]

Correct, but if this story is true and can be verified (which is questionable), Mueller may be holding his cards on this one.

I highly doubt Mueller is holding cards. Every branch is leaking like Pelosi's depends at this point.

 

[NotreDame]

I’m not a lawyer. I have no legal experience or knowledge with which to argue the fine details of this. Instead, recognizing my ignorance I bow to the expertise of people in the field who are highly qualified and capable of making such determinations. Experts. I also fully accept that different legal experts may have differing opinions on the matter, as its not something that has been ruled on yet.

From my layman’s understanding however, the issue is not whether Jr got something of value or just conspired to get something of value. Either would be a criminal act and he clearly tried. The question under debate is whether Russian government provided information intended to harm the electoral chances of a candidate is actually something legally considered ‘of value’. Thus the differing legal opinions.

I understand you are not a lawyer but this doesn't exempt you from critically analyzing your own information. For instance, did it ever occur to you to question whether a mere professor of law at Cornell and a former special counsel for the Defense Dept. are experts in election law? What makes them experts in election law? If the law professor has been teaching torts for the last 30 years at law school and has not researched, taught, practiced, or litigated election law, then the Cornell law professor is hardly an "expert" in election law. I have already explained, previously, why the former special counsel for the Defense Dept. should not be assumed to be an expert in election law. Yet, your default position was to treat them as experts on the basis of, essentially, nothing more than the fact the title of an article called them "experts." This is a problem.

The only clear expert cited in the article was Rick Hasen. Yet, the article did not articulate a complete analysis of the statute, as the article did not discuss every element of the statute. Hasen was only quoted in reference to a very limited aspect of the statute, specifically the "solicit" element, and ventured no opinion or analysis about the element of "contribution or donation."

Your instant deference to these lawyers isn't the only problem. You simply refused to engage the facts. The statute, its language, what the statute says, is part of the facts but was completely ignored by you. What was absent from your argument was any logical progression of questioning on the basis of the facts presented. What does "contribution or donation" mean? The chapter defines the phrase "contribution or donation" to mean "money or other thing of value." Does information constitute as "money or other thing of value"? Is Trump Jr. wanting "dirt" on Hillary the equivalent of "money or other thing of value"? Your argument did not bother to engage the facts with this logical line of questions and one does not have to be an "expert" in election law to ask these questions or to think critically in this manner in regards to the statute and Trump Jr.'s request for "dirt" on Hillary.

You can't properly explain away a complete failure to critically analyze these facts as merely deferring to alleged "experts."

 

[Kentonio]

I understand you are not a lawyer but this doesn't exempt you from critically analyzing your own information. For instance, did it ever occur to you to question whether a mere professor of law at Cornell and a former special counsel for the Defense Dept. are experts in election law? What makes them experts in election law? If the law professor has been teaching torts for the last 30 years at law school and has not researched, taught, practiced, or litigated election law, then the Cornell law professor is hardly an "expert" in election law. I have already explained, previously, why the former special counsel for the Defense Dept. should not be assumed to be an expert in election law. Yet, your default position was to treat them as experts on the basis of, essentially, nothing more than the fact the title of an article called them "experts." This is a problem.

The only clear expert cited in the article was Rick Hasen. Yet, the article did not articulate a complete analysis of the statute, as the article did not discuss every element of the statute. Hasen was only quoted in reference to a very limited aspect of the statute, specifically the "solicit" element, and ventured no opinion or analysis about the element of "contribution or donation."

Your instant deference to these lawyers isn't the only problem. You simply refused to engage the facts. The statute, its language, what the statute says, is part of the facts but was completely ignored by you. What was absent from your argument was any logical progression of questioning on the basis of the facts presented. What does "contribution or donation" mean? The chapter defines the phrase "contribution or donation" to mean "money or other thing of value." Does information constitute as "money or other thing of value"? Is Trump Jr. wanting "dirt" on Hillary the equivalent of "money or other thing of value"? Your argument did not bother to engage the facts with this logical line of questions and one does not have to be an "expert" in election law to ask these questions or to think critically in this manner in regards to the statute and Trump Jr.'s request for "dirt" on Hillary.

You can't properly explain away a complete failure to critically analyze these facts as merely deferring to alleged "experts."

So basically you just wrote a long reply attacking me and yet ended up back at the same point where I left off, which is that this all comes down to whether the Russian government providing information intended to harm the electoral chances of a candidate is actually something legally considered ‘of value’ or not. Something I had already said I have no legal background to provide an opinion on, but which clearly divides the legal community.

Was that really supposed to be an attempt to claim I 'completely failed to critically analyze facts'? Really? You produced absolutely nothing new in that long and heated post, you just repeated what I'd already said in completely unnecessary amounts of detail and threw in as many thinly veiled insults as you could.

D- Try harder next time.

 

[bhsmte]

I highly doubt Mueller is holding cards. Every branch is leaking like Pelosi's depends at this point.

Washington is indeed a sieve, no question. If anyone could keep things under wrap it would be Mueller, but the more people involved in the investigation, the greater chances of leaks.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Kinda like how the mafia used to work. The bosses always had a buffer between them and those doing the dirty work, so they could deny knowledge.

And, it probably is a legit legal defense. The thing is, Steele got his information from Russians and this Russian info was given to the FBI and also leaked to the media.

 

[NotreDame]

So basically you just wrote a long reply attacking me and yet ended up back at the same point where I left off, which is that this all comes down to whether the Russian government providing information intended to harm the electoral chances of a candidate is actually something legally considered ‘of value’ or not. Something I had already said I have no legal background to provide an opinion on, but which clearly divides the legal community.

Was that really supposed to be an attempt to claim I 'completely failed to critically analyze facts'? Really? You produced absolutely nothing new in that long and heated post, you just repeated what I'd already said in completely unnecessary amounts of detail and threw in as many thinly veiled insults as you could.

D- Try harder next time.

Try harder? Funny you giving this advice given what has transpired between us. My analysis of your argument is accurate. You said nothing about the substance of the argument, didn’t comment upon the facts, and didn’t ask simple questions any non-lawyer could have asked. Indeed, you did not engage in a logical progression of analysis that would have led you to the statutory meaning of “contribution or donation” as meaning “money or other thing of value.”

You did not critically analyze the facts. This is evident when there is a lack of logical questions and a rational progression in reading the statute. Your rebuttal is to invoke the word “expert” in regards to people who may not be experts.

All you did and wanted to do was cite an article and defend the veracity of the article on the basis the article claimed those speaking were “experts.” Again, that is a failing argument. You didn’t engage the facts.

And you assume facts not known to exist. It is not known the Russian government provided info to Trump Jr. The correct and precise issue is whether Trump Jr “soliciting dirt” in regards to Hillary is a “thing of value.”

If anyone needs to try harder, it’s you.

As I said previously, it’s not at all clear Trump Jr violated this statute. We are lacking facts to be convinced Trump Jr violated the statute. This is my point. There is an absence of facts supporting the view expressed in the Vox article. One doesn’t have to be an expert or lawyer to comprehend this point or believe it.

 

[Kentonio]

Try harder? Funny you giving this advice given what has transpired between us. My analysis of your argument is accurate. You said nothing about the substance of the argument, didn’t comment upon the facts, and didn’t ask simple questions any non-lawyer could have asked. Yes, you did not critically analyze the facts. This is evident when your rebuttal is to invoke the word “expert” in regards to people who may not be experts.

All you did and wanted to do was cite an article and defend the veracity of the article on the basis the article claimed those speaking were “experts.” Again, that is a failing argument. You didn’t engage the facts.

And you assume facts not known to exist. It is not known the Russian government provided info to Trump Jr.

If anyone needs to try harder, it’s you.

For someone who wants to try and accuse others of assumption, you should perhaps have done some basic research. The emails arranging the exchange contained the following..

“The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.”

That was the email that Don Jr responded to in the affirmative regarding arranging a meeting. He very clearly was willing to accept information he believed came from the Russian government.

 

[NotreDame]

For someone who wants to try and accuse others of assumption, you should perhaps have done some basic research. The emails arranging the exchange contained the following..

“The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.”

That was the email that Don Jr responded to in the affirmative regarding arranging a meeting. He very clearly was willing to accept information he believed came from the Russian government.

Oh...what to do...what should I do with the fact your “research” above doesn’t refute my prior remark of “it is not known the Russian government provided info to Trump Jr.”

Instead, your research established there was an “offer” to give Trump Jr info but your “research” doesn’t state the info was in fact transferred, communicated, delivered, or given to Trump Jr.

Hence, your prior remark of Trump Jr receiving info is unsubstantiated and your “research” above doesn’t establish Trump Jr received anything from the Russians.

But go ahead, tell me again of the necessity to do research, to research the fact it is not known whether Trump Jr received anything. Wait, you just did the research showing a mere offer was made but doesn’t show Trump Jr received anything. Thanks for refuting your own assertion for me.

I concur, your prior remark Trump Jr received info isn’t corroborated or supported by your own “research.” So, you can dispense with your prior assertion Trump Jr received the info from the Russians.

 

[Kentonio]

Oh...what to do...what should I do with the fact your “research” above doesn’t refute my prior remark of “it is not known the Russian government provided info to Trump Jr.”

Instead, your research established there was an “offer” to give Trump Jr info but your “research” doesn’t state the info was in fact transferred, communicated, delivered, or given to Trump Jr.

Hence, your prior remark of Trump Jr receiving info is unsubstantiated and your “research” above doesn’t establish Trump Jr received anything from the Russians.

But go ahead, tell me again of the necessity to do research, to research the fact it is not known whether Trump Jr received anything. Wait, you just did the research showing a mere offer was made but doesn’t show Trump Jr received anything. Thanks for refuting your own assertion for me.

I concur, your prior remark Trump Jr received info isn’t corroborated or supported by your own “research.” So, you can dispense with your prior assertion Trump Jr received the info from the Russians.

But given that we’ve already established the fact that whether he gained information or merely attempted to gain it is actually irrelevant in this case in determining whether a crime was committed or not, your statement seems like little more than a.. strawman?

 

[bhsmte]

But given that we’ve already established the fact that whether he gained information or merely attempted to gain it is actually irrelevant in this case in determining whether a crime was committed or not, your statement seems like little more than a.. strawman?

Serious irony.

 

[NotreDame]

But given that we’ve already established the fact that whether he gained information or merely attempted to gain it is actually irrelevant in this case in determining whether a crime was committed or not, your statement seems like little more than a.. strawman?

There's tremendous value in being precise and accurate with one statements and your continued and repeated misstatement of Trump Jr. receiving information needed to be addressed. Unless of course you think false statements of fact need not be addressed.

But as I said previously, it is not at all as clear that Trump Jr. violated this statute, for reasons I stated before. These "experts" hastily arrived to their conclusion, a point I have made before.

To augment my view, the links below are to arguments made explaining why Trump Jr.'s conduct does not violate the statute. One article relies upon, in part, my prior reasoning that "dirt" on Hillary may not qualify as a contribution or donation. The other article in the second link is a prose by 1st Amendment law professor, 1st Amendment scholar, and attorney Eugene Volokh, who takes the view Trump has a 1st Amendment free speech right to receive the information.

Why Donald Jr., Kushner and Manafort’s meeting with the Russian agent was a bad idea, but may not be illegal

Opinion | Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

 

[Kentonio]

There's tremendous value in being precise and accurate with one statements and your continued and repeated misstatement of Trump Jr. receiving information needed to be addressed. Unless of course you think false statements of fact need not be addressed.

But as I said previously, it is not at all as clear that Trump Jr. violated this statute, for reasons I stated before. These "experts" hastily arrived to their conclusion, a point I have made before.

To augment my view, the links below are to arguments made explaining why Trump Jr.'s conduct does not violate the statute. One article relies upon, in part, my prior reasoning that "dirt" on Hillary may not qualify as a contribution or donation. The other article in the second link is a prose by 1st Amendment law professor, 1st Amendment scholar, and attorney Eugene Volokh, who takes the view Trump has a 1st Amendment free speech right to receive the information.

Why Donald Jr., Kushner and Manafort’s meeting with the Russian agent was a bad idea, but may not be illegal

Opinion | Can it be a crime to do opposition research by asking foreigners for information?

Thank you for correcting a mistatement about something completely irrelevant to what we were discussing, obviously pedantry is extremely important.

As for your links, I've already read numerous articles giving that viewpoint. What I take issue with is your determination that the experts in the original article 'hastily arrived to their conclusion' as you keep repeating. You don't know that, and you've attempted to devalue their opinion even further by attacking their credentials without any evidence to support your attacks.

You have absolutely no idea how much time they spent considering this before giving their opinion, you just don't agree with their opinion and lack the humility to accept others may disagree and yet have just as much basis for their opinions as you do. Or indeed as the authors of the articles you just linked have for theirs.