Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: Annee

The hill article wasn't legal analysis. It was explaining that comey turned over memos that contained classified information. Some are saying he redacted it, but if that's the case, he violated other laws on the handling of classified information.

a reply to: Annee

More to the point..

Trump demanded the IG look into whether Comey released classified Memo's and the IG agreed to..

4 Months ago...and crickets.

Which is usually the sound of Trump getting news he doesn't want to tell anyone about.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

The hill article wasn't legal analysis. It was explaining that comey turned over memos that contained classified information. Some are saying he redacted it, but if that's the case, he violated other laws on the handling of classified information.

You seem to be implying I didn't read it or have reading comprehension problems.

"Some say . . ."

Nope, did not miss that.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

The hill article wasn't legal analysis. It was explaining that comey turned over memos that contained classified information. Some are saying he redacted it, but if that's the case, he violated other laws on the handling of classified information.

So if he redacted it so it contained no classified information, he violated laws on the handling of classified material with regards to a document that was not classified?

You make the most absurd claims and arguments.

Comey is on solid ground. If he was even a hair on the wrong side of legal then Trump or Nunes or IG et al. would have had him charged lickety split.

Tell me again how Comey gave all his classified memos to his friend.

a reply to: Annee

Then you're making some weird straw man arguments here.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: network dude

I only ask, as it seems John McCain was first contacted about the dossier, he received a copy, and gave it to the FBI. So was he guilty of the same thing at the time?

He's not guilty for one reason, he immediately turned it over to the FBI, and told them he was contacted. That makes a world of difference.

I'm just having a hard time seeing the differences between usual "opposition research", and this.

Well, the glaring difference is the aforementioned. If you could show me the point at which anyone in the Trump Campaign team received an offer and then immediately followed-up by forwarding all relevant data to the FBI, then I will ABSOLUTELY change my stance and say there's no way the Trump campaign should be held accountable for this. All I ever recall hearing is "I love it!", so if there's more, I would love to see it.

So if Don Jr. would have contacted the FBI and told them some Russian bitch wasted his time, this would all be fine? take time to think about your answer.

a reply to: network dude

I literally LOL'd at that. Well put

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: Annee

More to the point..

Trump demanded the IG look into whether Comey released classified Memo's and the IG agreed to..

4 Months ago...and crickets.

Which is usually the sound of Trump getting news he doesn't want to tell anyone about.

I love it!

I agree with you and alphabetaone.

However, it remains in the "til the fat lady sings" limbo for now.

Then there's intent. As it says in the Politifact article - - there's the issue of over classification. Comey being in charge of the FBI can classify at his discretion. (simplified/generalized).

I would be shocked if any case against Comey actually materialized.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Annee

Then you're making some weird straw man arguments here.

You are so wishful.

a reply to: soberbacchus

If he redacted it he knew it was classified. If he knew it was classified, why didn't he return it to the FBI where it belonged? Possessing classified information outside of its proper system is illegal.

You obviously have never held a clearance before. If you had, you'd know that you'd be in jail if you had done what comey did.

I have not personally verified this.

But, interesting addition.

The friend, Columbia Univesity law professor Daniel Richman, confirmed to Fox News that he worked for the FBI on an unpaid basis. Richman had a security clearance, a badge to access the FBI building, and worked on “special projects” for the agency, according to sources familiar with his status at the FBI.

originally posted by: network dude
So if Don Jr. would have contacted the FBI and told them some Russian bitch wasted his time, this would all be fine? take time to think about your answer.

Let me fix it for you so you can understand


So if Don Jr. had contacted the FBI and made them aware of a foreign national attempting to provide dirt on Hillary (which they are lawbound TO do, just like McCain had done), then Don Jr. would not be in legal jeopardy now.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I don't think that's correct, do you have a link? I don't think mccain reported to the FBI until after he had the dossier in hand.

Here's mccain's statement from when the news broke:

“Late last year, I received sensitive information that has since been made public,” McCain said in a statement on Wednesday. “Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgement about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding this issue.”

That pretty clearly seems to say he had it before he made contact with the FBI. The last sentence could easily be saying that he did not go to the FBI before obtaining the dossier.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

What Trump did was illegal, what Hillary did was not.

The other answer is more subtle. Adav Noti, who served as a Federal Election Commission lawyer between 2007 and 2017, told me that all of this goes back to the ban on contributions and donations from foreign governments or foreign nationals in federal elections. The law has been on the books since the 1970s, and he said it applies to promises of deleted emails and other kinds of opposition research. "

There is a real meaningful distinction," said Noti, who is now senior director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that monitors election law. "The Clinton campaign, based on what has been reported, paid for opposition research, which included paying people to dig up dirt in foreign countries." Unsavory? Perhaps. But not illegal.

Compare that to what we know about George Papadopoulos, a low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, who has pled guilty to lying to the FBI. The plea agreement, released Monday by Mueller, says Papadopoulos emailed a Russian professor and another Russian contact who promised to turn over Clinton's emails free of charge.

Bloomberg

a reply to: darkbake

Riiiiight, like they would give a plea deal for lying to the FBI when they could get him for soliciting donations from a foreign national... Unless of course, they knew they couldn't get him for that.

Russians tell Trump Jr. they have damaging info on Hillary to get a meeting. They get the meeting and have none, instead they want to lobby about adoptions. Trump ends the meeting and gets nothing of value. Everyone screams collusion for over a year.

Clinton solicited Russians and paid (via The Clinton Foundation) for FALSE dirt (Steele dossier - hired by Fusion GPS) on Trump which Obama used to apply to the FISA court to allow the FBI to insert a spy, Stefan Halper, into the Trump campaign as well as tapping Trump and the communications of everyone involved within his campaign during the election violating the FBI's own rules who also withheld from the FISA court that the source of the dossier was the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. In addition the CIA director, John Brennan forms an "inter-agency taskforce" involving the following government agencys: (Director of National Intelligence, the Treasury Department, The Justice Department, The White House, The CIA and the FBI) all based on supposed Trump-Russia collusion outlined in the false Steele dossier in 2016. Donna Brazile gives the Clinton campaign 99% of the $ raised by the DNC as well as veto power over the DNC's decisions during the primary and she gave Hillary all of the questions for the third presidential debate and all of this is just fine?

I'm beginning to think that this may have been a set-up by Trump against Clinton/Obama administration/MSM... I'm still voting Libertarian but if this was a set-up by Trump then this is by far the best long game in politics ever and Trump not only won twitter but the internet to boot.

a reply to: badwhiskey

He is a 4D chess genius... so something as trivial as a 2 year long game would be a walk in the park.

He is the bestest in a bigly way.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: underpass61
So, let's say in a perfect lib world everything pans out and Trump Jr. is tried and found guilty of something related to this. What's the penalty? Will he be going to the gallows or just paying some meaningless fine and be on his way?

Well for starters, he now has a criminal record.
Daddy could easily pardon him, but he would still be a criminal.
That would also place Jared in the same criminality boat, stripping him of his clearance and inability to retain his advisor title.

There are other ramifications that I simply dont feel like getting into, but those alone are well enough.

"Perfect LIB world?" Are you suggesting that only libs want to have the code of law practiced? Otherwise i can see why you'd paint with so broad a brush.

Ahem. I dont recall a trial or trump Jr being convicted yet either so you are jumping the boat there.

originally posted by: yuppa

Ahem. I dont recall a trial or trump Jr being convicted yet either so you are jumping the boat there.

HERE is what I replied to and im sure you damn well know it:

originally posted by: underpass61
So, let's say in a perfect lib world everything pans out and Trump Jr. is tried and found guilty of something related to this. What's the penalty? Will he be going to the gallows or just paying some meaningless fine and be on his way?

Must be really convenient for you to "lose track" when the outcome is something you don't like huh?

Which law? Not the one that was quoted. The law that makes that illegal is later on in the USC.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Really? Later on WHERE exactly?

How many times does this have to be posted before you actually read it - and make a good faith attempt to understand it?

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

(a) Prohibition It 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” defined As 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.

Pretending to blame YOUR errors on someone else's subterfuge is unworthy. Own your own ignorance, will you please?

I have personally posted the full text (at least of section (a) several times, and the link to the text of the law too many times. So the full text has been available to you right from the start. Choosing to blame your blatant lie on someone else giving you bad information is plain and simple bovine feces.

YOU reposted the truncated text of the law and YOU specifically used that truncated text to claim that it didn't make the solicitation illegal. And YOU specifically used that truncated text to claim that the anti-solicitation part of the law is somewhere else in the U.S. code - and YOU never quoted that other law.

What is the point of your continual trivially exposed lies about this? Its just stupid.