Oops, looks like Don Jr is going to prison.

[NotreDame]

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.

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

No, accuracy is important. We wouldn’t be having this dialogue if you could accurately and correctly represent the facts.

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.

Memory lapse? I’ve stated unequivocally the lack of facts to support the alleged “experts” opinions renders their conclusion hastily drawn. Unless of course a lack of facts supporting a conclusion means the conclusion is properly supported, a dubious notion.

Of course, perhaps you think there are enough facts to support the alleged “experts” conclusions. Fair point. Yet, for some odd reason neither yourself or the so called “experts” have cited to those facts.

Hence, in the absence to support the so called “experts” conclsuion, it is proper at the moment to claim they made a hasty conclusion.

And you need to be reminded that I critically analyzed the accolades of the so called “experts” because of your mistaken belief they are “experts.” Your lack of any critical inquiry as to whether they are “experts” was a problem, compounded by your unmitigated deference to them.

You have absolutely no idea how much time they spent considering this before giving their opinion

More fluff. Indeed, I do not know how much time, if any, they spent “considering this” before they ventured an opinion. It could be they spent ZERO time! Since it’s possible they spent ZERO time, citing to the fact it’s unknown how much time they spent, if any, this line of reasoning hardly assists you in making any helpful point about them.

The fact it’s unknown if they spent ANY time considering this issue is but one additional reason to not be so deferential to their view and should cause us to pause in applying the label of “expert.” You unwittingly brought up a point undermining your own view of them. Good job.

you just don't agree with their opinion

This isn’t accurate. It’s rather difficult to not properly comprehend by position since I’ve unequivocally stated my claim more than once.

So, please pay attention.

1. They may be right, Trump Jr may have violated the statute.
2. They may be wrong, Trump Jr. may not have violated the statute.
3. Their resolute conclusion Trump Jr. violated the statute was hastily drawn.
4. I say what I said in number 3 because there are insufficient facts establishing each element of the statute was violated.
4a. Those insufficient facts include any authoritative opinion determining a solicitation for “dirt” on Hillary implicates a specific element of the statute.
4b. An insufficient fact is a lack of authority as to whether Trump Jr. has a free speech claim and defense to the statute.

Those unknown facts render the claims made in the Vox article, as pertaining to Trump Jr, hastily made.

 

[Kentonio]

No, accuracy is important. We wouldn’t be having this dialogue if you could accurately and correctly represent the facts.



Memory lapse? I’ve stated unequivocally the lack of facts to support the alleged “experts” opinions renders their conclusion hastily drawn. Unless of course a lack of facts supporting a conclusion means the conclusion is properly supported, a dubious notion.

Of course, perhaps you think there are enough facts to support the alleged “experts” conclusions. Fair point. Yet, for some odd reason neither yourself or the so called “experts” have cited to those facts.

Hence, in the absence to support the so called “experts” conclsuion, it is proper at the moment to claim they made a hasty conclusion.

And you need to be reminded that I critically analyzed the accolades of the so called “experts” because of your mistaken belief they are “experts.” Your lack of any critical inquiry as to whether they are “experts” was a problem, compounded by your unmitigated deference to them.



More fluff. Indeed, I do not know how much time, if any, they spent “considering this” before they ventured an opinion. It could be they spent ZERO time! Since it’s possible they spent ZERO time, citing to the fact it’s unknown how much time they spent, if any, this line of reasoning hardly assists you in making any helpful point about them.

The fact it’s unknown if they spent ANY time considering this issue is but one additional reason to not be so deferential to their view and should cause us to pause in applying the label of “expert.” You unwittingly brought up a point undermining your own view of them. Good job.



This isn’t accurate. It’s rather difficult to not properly comprehend by position since I’ve unequivocally stated my claim more than once.

So, please pay attention.

1. They may be right, Trump Jr may have violated the statute.
2. They may be wrong, Trump Jr. may not have violated the statute.
3. Their resolute conclusion Trump Jr. violated the statute was hastily drawn.
4. I say what I said in number 3 because there are insufficient facts establishing each element of the statute was violated.
4a. Those insufficient facts include any authoritative opinion determining a solicitation for “dirt” on Hillary implicates a specific element of the statute.
4b. An insufficient fact is a lack of authority as to whether Trump Jr. has a free speech claim and defense to the statute.

Those unknown facts render the claims made in the Vox article, as pertaining to Trump Jr, hastily made.

And yet you went on to link to several articles supporting your own opinion yet completely failed to apply the same caveats to those. How strange..

 

[Fantine]

Mueller is taking his time with his investigation. My own belief is that he has evidence on dozens of members of the administration, from Trump on down. Although it's hard to wait, I would rather he does the thorough, comprehensive job he seems to be doing, and he will have to follow the (laundered) money from so many participants, from Trump on down, to get to the bottom of things.

 

[NotreDame]

And yet you went on to link to several articles supporting your own opinion yet completely failed to apply the same caveats to those. How strange..

What caveats? Unlike you, I didn’t commit myself to the views of either speaker I cited. Unlike you, I didn’t cite to their labels of “lawyer” or “professor” as evidence their view is correct. Unlike you, I realized this is an area of the law which is largely unresolved in terms of its applicability to these specific facts regarding Trump Jr, and as a result I knew better than to adopt, endorse, or make s claim with the amount of certainty displayed in your posts and imbued in the Vox article.

Again, hasty conclusions made in the Vox article. Very hasty.

 

[bhsmte]

Mueller is taking his time with his investigation. My own belief is that he has evidence on dozens of members of the administration, from Trump on down. Although it's hard to wait, I would rather he does the thorough, comprehensive job he seems to be doing, and he will have to follow the (laundered) money from so many participants, from Trump on down, to get to the bottom of things.

And I think that is Trump's biggest concern, his finances, not some Russian collusion to impact the election.

This is why he has yet to release his tax returns.

 

[Kentonio]

Unlike you, I didn’t cite to their labels of “lawyer” or “professor” as evidence their view is correct.

Yes you did.

"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."

Unlike you, I realized this is an area of the law which is largely unresolved in terms of its applicability to these specific facts regarding Trump Jr, and as a result I knew better than to adopt, endorse, or make s claim with the amount of certainty displayed in your posts and imbued in the Vox article.

Sure, I've only said about 3 times so far that this is untested in court and all based on opinions. Do you usually just lie about the things people say, or do you have memory problems?

 

[super animator]

And I think that is Trump's biggest concern, his finances, not some Russian collusion to impact the election.

This is why he has yet to release his tax returns.

From I read, there a strong possibility that muller might dig up his involvement in the money laundering business that happen in Russia which explains quite a bit.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.”

Does the candidate saying on national TV that he hopes the exchange happens make the info more or less valuable?

 

[NotreDame]

Yes you did.

"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."



Sure, I've only said about 3 times so far that this is untested in court and all based on opinions. Do you usually just lie about the things people say, or do you have memory problems?

What is “my view?” My view has been the Vox article and the lawyers cited in the article made hasty conclusions. The articles I cited augment my view precisely because those are defenses to guilt and they are not addressed by the professors in the article and the law is unresolved.

I didn’t cite to their accolades as evidence, unlike you, and neither did I invoke fancy labels to enhance their perspective.

And I’d be careful of your subtle suggestion that I’m “lying.” Lying is a specific factual allegation of dishonesty and you are treading very dangerously by alleging I lied.

This digression aside, your defense has minimally been beyond an irrational reliance upon the lawyers and their labels. The evidence is your own posts explicitly citing to their labels and lacking any rational defense for your unmitigated deference to them. No lie.

 

[cow451]

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.

Nah. I’ll stick with Fortune, et al. rather than the Trump “family”.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I will give you three guess's who she is on the phone with. And its not her lawyer.

 

[DaisyDay]

Every branch is leaking like Pelosi's depends at this point.

Ha ha ha That's funny because Pelosi is old and old people are sometimes incontinent and it's real funny to ridicule old ladies just for being old ha ha ha ha.

 

[Rion]

Ha ha ha That's funny because Pelosi is old and old people are sometimes incontinent and it's real funny to ridicule old ladies just for being old ha ha ha ha.

No, it is more that she's obviously gotten to the point where she needs to retire. She can't even remember if it's Trump or Bush who is in office.

 

[DaisyDay]

No, it is more that she's obviously gotten to the point where she needs to retire. She can't even remember if it's Trump or Bush who is in office.

Hahahaha so that means she wets herself hahahahaha Let's ridicule old people cause they're old and therefore have infirmities! Hey, maybe she has dentures too so you can ridicule her for eating funny - doesn't matter whether it's true or not, she's old so it's funny Hahahahaha

 

[KCfromNC]

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

The fact is Mueller's team kept the cooperation of several of Trump's campaign staff secret for months. But then again, a lame personal attack against a liberal is a convincing argument to some which makes that fact go away. Which to find more believable?

 

[Rion]

Hahahaha so that means she wets herself hahahahaha Let's ridicule old people cause they're old and therefore have infirmities! Hey, maybe she has dentures too so you can ridicule her for eating funny - doesn't matter whether it's true or not, she's old so it's funny Hahahahaha

You're really upset about this. I apologize if I struck a nerve.

 

[whatbogsends]

No, it is more that she's obviously gotten to the point where she needs to retire. She can't even remember if it's Trump or Bush who is in office.

Hey, self-proclaimed liberal non-Trump supporter - did you offer similar critique for Trump when he couldn't even remember what country he was bombing?

 

[Rion]

Hey, self-proclaimed liberal non-Trump supporter - did you offer similar critique for Trump when he couldn't even remember what country he was bombing?

Hey self-proclaimed non-bigoted atheist, when was that? Has he done over half a dozen times already ?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Hey, self-proclaimed liberal non-Trump supporter - did you offer similar critique for Trump when he couldn't even remember what country he was bombing?

Maybe the person lied about all of that - the same type of person who lies so much they have to put their identity in their signature.

But, what do I know...

 

[whatbogsends]

Hey self-proclaimed non-bigoted atheist, when was that? Has he done over half a dozen times already ?