Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Trump never had the authority to end the magnitsky act. It's legislation. To undo legislation, the legislature has to remove or revise their legislation. I know details are hard when they break the conspiracy, but they're the truth.

Why would you think trump knows that? His knowledge of how government works is evolutionary. He's a learn as you go kind of guy.

a reply to: network dude

Fusion is an American company. Don't even dude.✋

a reply to: Sillyolme
Fusion paid Steele who paid Russian operatives.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

Information is speech not a "thing of value"

And yes you did say information, maybe you need to reread what you wrote.

You: Per the above, even if you attempt to get information from a foreign national (SOLICIT), it is unlawful (a CRIME) 
In case you need help unpacking that US Code I'll rewrite it in a way that makes sense

I think Rosetta Stone is calling your name, because clearly English is not working for you. "even if you attempt to get (something as seemingly innocuous as) information"

Im truly done with you, I don't want to hand-hold you through every friggin conversation and its context...the spin gets old, and your sycophantic rhetoric gets equally as old.

LMAO Information = speech

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

No info was gotten. so no crime was the result. All trump jr got out of the meeting was hot air.

You take a gun to a crime scene.

Whether you use it or not - - still a crime.

Not according to the Laws on getting information from foreign nationals. your comparison is stupid.

Personally, I say your denial is stupid.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Yes, in context of this law information is speech. Sorry to hurt your feelings. Opposition research also speech.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to cite that caselaw where they held that opposition research is a 'thing of value'. The crickets are getting loud though.

Good luck, you can keep screaming at the sky about this. Just don't be disappointed when no one is found guilty of violating this law by obtaining (or attempting to obtain) opposition research.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I would think "is part of " would be even more important as it sure implies there have been other efforts towards the same goal. Also he is not surprised as he stated " if it's what I think it is I love it" meaning he's already given thought to getting something from Russia . Probably thought he was getting the deleted emails from Hillary's server . Especially the reference to later this summer... Meaning when Hillary had her convention.
Russia if you're listening... Was a direct request to an already established relationship and operation.

a reply to: Dfairlite

And the DNC paid a law firm who paid fusion.
I know ultimately what I pay for a tomato goes to a farmer somewhere but I pay the grocery store who pays a distributor who pays a broker who pays the farmer so saying I pay the farmer while technically true is not a direct transaction.
The DNC didn't pay any foreign national they paid the law firm. That's where their transfers will end or their checks if they still use paper to pay for anything. not in Christopher Steeles hands.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Information is speech not a "thing of value"

Tell that to my parents who paid thousands of dollars for college.
I think since I parlayed that information into a nice little career that they would say it was valuable.
That's sure why SUNY made them pay for it.

a reply to: underpass61

I imagine the political fallout would be catastrophic.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Information is speech not a "thing of value"

What?

Surely you don't mean that.

a reply to: angeldoll

In the eyes of law, yes, that is the case. Intrinsically everything has value.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah that's the least of their concerns. Junior gets found guilty of anything and trumps political career is over. Even if Mueller never touched him (unlikely) he'd never get reelected.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yet another person who doesn't understand how the law works. No one is saying information doesn't have value. Obviously it does. However, it is protected by speech law which would override laws that would label it as "things of value".

Consider the news. They provide information that both helps and hinders each campaign. Given the cost of air time and the value of information, all of the news networks are in violation of campaign contribution maximums. We know the media works directly with the campaigns thanks to the podesta emails. But they're protected by speech laws, just like all opposition research is.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: angeldoll

In the eyes of law, yes, that is the case. Intrinsically everything has value.

Hm. So let's say the Steele Dossier was commissioned for millions of dollars by persons who wanted to smear Trump.

It has no value, and you have no problem with that?

It's only information after all.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: angeldoll

In the eyes of law, yes, that is the case. Intrinsically everything has value.

Are you a lawyer?

Do you work in law?

Do you have any degrees in law?

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: angeldoll

In the eyes of law, yes, that is the case. Intrinsically everything has value.

Hm. So let's say the Steele Dossier was commissioned for millions of dollars by persons who wanted to smear Trump.

It has no value, and you have no problem with that?

It's only information after all.

Waiting.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Which is why if he was in any real legal jeopardy trump wouldn't hesitate to simply pardon him. If it's over, why let your kid go to jail?

a reply to: Dfairlite

No one is saying information doesn't have value.

You did. A couple of us quoted it.

a reply to: Annee

I studied law, yes. I have also linked to law professors who have the same analysis.