DJT JR Was Set Up by the DNC. Russian Lawyer worked for Fusion GPS, Group behind phony Dossier

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

His statement convinces me that the Trump administration was activity seeking dirt on Hillary. And really didn't are where they got it from.

That is pretty much exactly what happens in a political campaign.

Even if she had damaging information and the Trump campaign took it and ran with it, no laws would have been broken... unless it was classified information. Since there was no information, we can pretty much rule that out.

Don't be naive information isn't given for free. That means he would have entered into a deal with a Russian agent to do something. That is illegal as a member of government. Luckily for stupid aka Trump Jr the woman didn't have anything. If she did his but could be in jail.

Firstly, they were not members of govt at the time.
Secondly, your speculation about payments is nothing more than that.

Are you really that brainwashed that you think a Russian telling a campaign member something bad about Hillary Clinton is against the law???

a reply to: UKTruth

They think if the say "collusion" and "Russia" often enough they can brainwash people into believing something is wrong.

There are alot here who believe this.
If "collusion" with a foreign agent is a crime most of washington dc would be locked up.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kali74

what law was broken?

I see this question being raised quite a lot.

I think there is a degree of misunderstanding.

Its not about what law has been broken but what law might have been broken, or what ethical violation may have taken place.

For example, Trump may have fired Comey for the purposes of obstructing justice, right now he has not broken any law but if he was found to have acted in such a way as to obstruct justice then a law has been broken.

Its like any law that is broken, you are have only broken it when found guilty really, if i commit murder I have broken the law but only if you can prove if have broken the law. That is why these investigations are ongoing to determine if any laws have been broken or if there is suspicion that laws have been broken that may warrant further investigation.

good we have an understanding about there needing to be an actual law that forbids something
your murder analogy is great
murder is a crime
please show me a similar law that shows "collusion" to be a crime
or are you only saying "collusion" is an excuse to continue an investigation which has produced NO indictments

a reply to: Sillyolme

You are so blinded by hate,that you can't even see straight.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

His statement convinces me that the Trump administration was activity seeking dirt on Hillary. And really didn't are where they got it from.

That is pretty much exactly what happens in a political campaign.

Even if she had damaging information and the Trump campaign took it and ran with it, no laws would have been broken... unless it was classified information. Since there was no information, we can pretty much rule that out.

Don't be naive information isn't given for free. That means he would have entered into a deal with a Russian agent to do something. That is illegal as a member of government. Luckily for stupid aka Trump Jr the woman didn't have anything. If she did his but could be in jail.

Firstly, they were not members of govt at the time.
Secondly, your speculation about payments is nothing more than that.

Are you really that brainwashed that you think a Russian telling a campaign member something bad about Hillary Clinton is against the law???

Of he agrees to do things for them in office it most certainly is. Just like bribing a police officer. It's illegal to bribe them to do something for you in their official capacity

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Ares2493

Oh stop.
The Russian lady said they contacted her and they were longing( to use her word. ) Longing for information they could use.
They had also been advised in an email that the Russians were attempting to swing the election towards trump. They knew Russia was helping them and they sought out additional info from this lady.
So them claiming all last summer that Russia wasnt behind the hacks was a lie. They knew Russia was trying to help them and they put themselves in a position to assist Russia in that effort.
We got them.
This is collusion.
Never mind they didn't get anything.

What else did the Russian lady your are referring to say:

“I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that,” she said. “It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted.” As opposed to a meeting reeking of collusion, Veselnitskaya paints a picture of a short meeting that lasted approximately 20-30 minutes, in which the participants were disinterested. She said Manafort was looking at his phone during the meeting and seemed “absent-minded,” while Kushner left after 10 minutes and Trump Jr. only asked her one question. “The question that I was asked was as follows: whether I had any financial records which might prove that the funds used to sponsor the DNC were coming from inappropriate source,” she told NBC.

So, the Trump campaign, unlike cooky liberals and left wing media actually acted with integrity. They asked for proof of the claim and when there was none provided, they ended the meeting and didn't mention the claim against Clinton. Leftists and left wing media should take note.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

His statement convinces me that the Trump administration was activity seeking dirt on Hillary. And really didn't are where they got it from.

That is pretty much exactly what happens in a political campaign.

Even if she had damaging information and the Trump campaign took it and ran with it, no laws would have been broken... unless it was classified information. Since there was no information, we can pretty much rule that out.

Don't be naive information isn't given for free. That means he would have entered into a deal with a Russian agent to do something. That is illegal as a member of government. Luckily for stupid aka Trump Jr the woman didn't have anything. If she did his but could be in jail.

Firstly, they were not members of govt at the time.
Secondly, your speculation about payments is nothing more than that.

Are you really that brainwashed that you think a Russian telling a campaign member something bad about Hillary Clinton is against the law???

Of he agrees to do things for them in office it most certainly is. Just like bribing a police officer. It's illegal to bribe them to do something for you in their official capacity

What has that got to with this thread? The meeting happened when they were not members of govt.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Most likely this federal election law:

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

Legal Information Institute

a reply to: shooterbrody

18 U.S. Code § 610 - Coercion of political activity

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

None.
Another asinine conspiracy theory favorite top ten.

Hey tell us the one about plutonium. That's my favorite...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

His statement convinces me that the Trump administration was activity seeking dirt on Hillary. And really didn't are where they got it from.

That is pretty much exactly what happens in a political campaign.

Even if she had damaging information and the Trump campaign took it and ran with it, no laws would have been broken... unless it was classified information. Since there was no information, we can pretty much rule that out.

Don't be naive information isn't given for free. That means he would have entered into a deal with a Russian agent to do something. That is illegal as a member of government. Luckily for stupid aka Trump Jr the woman didn't have anything. If she did his but could be in jail.

Firstly, they were not members of govt at the time.
Secondly, your speculation about payments is nothing more than that.

Are you really that brainwashed that you think a Russian telling a campaign member something bad about Hillary Clinton is against the law???

Of he agrees to do things for them in office it most certainly is. Just like bribing a police officer. It's illegal to bribe them to do something for you in their official capacity

What has that got to with this thread? The meeting happened when they were not members of govt.

I'd he had made agreements to do things when they got in to office that is collusion. Just because he wasn't in office yet doesn't mean he couldn't make promises. In this situation licky for him he misunderstood what the meeting was about. So he didn't make any promises. But that doesn't mean he wasn't willing to do so making him a dirt bag.

a reply to: dragonridr

www.law.cornell.edu...
Who is the employee of the Federal Government you site?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RazorV66

Not my dream buddy. It's what's happening. Don't put it on my head. Blame the moron who did this.
You have anything real to add to the discussion?
Eggs and baskets... nope not eggs and baskets.
Russians and collusion.
It's bad. It's about as bad as it can get for trump who's lawyers are already trying to build a wall around because this is SO VERY VEY BAD.
I have no dog in this race.
If this idiot gets impeached I'm stuck with pence just like you.

you have no dog in this race? haha you made 8 posts in the first page you could have fooled me!

a reply to: Kali74

How would a Russian have dirt on HRC if not obtained illegally?

One answer comes up rather quickly for me....
If Hillary had approached Russian officials in pay to play schemes when she was the Secretary of State of the US, a Russian official would have that knowledge and it wouldn't have been obtained illegally.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets pretend no law was broken.

Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?

Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: shooterbrody

Most likely this federal election law:

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

§ 30121.
Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)
a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)
a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)
an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)
a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” definedAs used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)
a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)
an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

Legal Information Institute

This is all about the receipt of foreign donations.
Try again.

a reply to: Kali74

Yeah I have seen that argument as well....please show me ONE case where this was in court. Hasn't happened.


If they did ANYTHING illegal I hope they get punished to the FULLEST extent of the law. I have yet to see evidence of that.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Lets pretend no law was broken.

Would you really be comfortable with the idea of the POTUS having won because of Russian interference?

Now laws may very well have been broken, but just take the issue of law out of it, its still very disturbing. What bothers me more than anything right now is how Trump supporters such as yourself seem to be ignoring this possibility, you are blinded by politics.

There is no evidence that Trump won because of Russian interference.
Moreover - foreigners also helped the Clinton campaign... in fact received money to help her.

It now seems that this lawyer was not even linked to the Russian Govt.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: dragonridr

His statement convinces me that the Trump administration was activity seeking dirt on Hillary. And really didn't are where they got it from.

That is pretty much exactly what happens in a political campaign.

Even if she had damaging information and the Trump campaign took it and ran with it, no laws would have been broken... unless it was classified information. Since there was no information, we can pretty much rule that out.

Not from foreigners who obtained it illegally. Come on...

Obtained what illegally?
There was nothing obtained, transferred or used.
How could anyone know that something was obtained illegally if it doesn't exist?

It doesn't have to exist! That's awfully mean of you, asking for real proof and facts.