Trump Jr and Russian Government WORK AGAINST CLINTON

[_EAllusion]

Do you think Russia worked to get Trump elected because they thought it would be good for America? You don't think they have expectations that getting Trump elected will help them?

If we take this to its logical conclusion, why not just allow foreigners to vote in our elections. Then there's no need for all this sneaking around.

Merely having Trump be the US's president is a huge win for anyone who does not wish the best for the US in a global context. But it's understandable that people with partisan blinders on might not see that as clearly.

The potential for pro-Russia policy in the form of weakening NATO, reducing sanctions, etc. would be a cherry on top.

[_Bach]

I'm focused more on the impropriety of the acts, which is enormous.

So enormous that you can't site one law that was broken with the evidence to back up your bluster!!!

Still looking for govt subsidies to live by and still blustering to attempt to be important on a message board!!!!

You do it well but, like Jersey Gal, you definitely have the time to spend your life posting here!!!

Chump!

[_Kevin Graham]

So enormous that you can't site one law that was broken with the evidence to back up your bluster!!!

"Site" one law? You're pretty illiterate for a millionaire, huh?

How about the illegality of accepting campaign contributions from a foreign power:

"This new information provides grist for the mill under the federal election laws," said Kenneth Gross, a campaign law attorney with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Federal laws prohibit anyone from soliciting or accepting any campaign contribution from a foreign national or foreign government.

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation," reads Title 11 in the Code of Federal Regulations, section 110.20 (g). A contribution can be "anything of value," including negative information about a political opponent.

It is unlawful to "provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance or receipt of a contribution or donation," reads 11 CFR 110.20 (h).

I know, I know. You have your head so far up FOX News' arse, you didn't realize there was an outside world of non-fake news outlets that are actually engaging the issue in an honest, intelligent manner. FOX News is instead hosting idiots who are babbling about Hillary giving uranium to Russia.

And apparently it doesn't even faze you that Jr. and Kush have been flat out lying since day one. FOX will never say they were lying, only that they made "mistakes." LOL.

[_moksha]

"Trump said in his campaign that if I voted for Clinton, I would be stuck with a criminal president under constant federal investigation from day one.

Turns out, he was right. I voted for Clinton and I'm stuck with a criminal president under federal investigation from day one."

[_Philo Sofee]

"Trump said in his campaign that if I voted for Clinton, I would be stuck with a criminal president under constant federal investigation from day one.

Turns out, he was right. I voted for Clinton and I'm stuck with a criminal president under federal investigation from day one."

HA!

[_aussieguy55]

Finland are beefing up their army fearing some hostility from Russia. Will Russia ever leave Ukraine alone?

[_subgenius]

including negative information about a political opponent

NOPE, within a law specifically narrow about financial values you cannot arbitrarily assign a value to gossip or something that has no tangible value...especially since, in this case, nothing was actually transmitted - correct? (perhaps read the law for yourself? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20)

or what "value" are you saying this lack-of-information actually possessed?....zero?...well, then even by your pathetic view the law was not violated.

Leave it to KG to want to criminalize information..ehem, only that information which is damaging to his views.

Nevertheless, your desperate attempt at an armchair legal interpretation is, once again, a cause for shame and embarrassment from your wife.

But, yeah, you still can't provide an answer to the poster's request for "one" actual law....

[_subgenius]

Please keep up. Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manifort all on the Drumpf campaign, and all believed she was working for the Russian government with dirt on Hillary Clinton. All three went to that meeting.
SEE https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/p ... inton.html

my goodness, you are stupid....does the ring in your nose still hurt? or does it's constant tugging you around just become 2nd nature?

[_DarkHelmet]

including negative information about a political opponent

NOPE, within a law specifically narrow about financial values you cannot arbitrarily assign a value to gossip or something that has no tangible value...especially since, in this case, nothing was actually transmitted - correct? (perhaps read the law for yourself? https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20)

The law specifically says "anything of value". information has value. Information can be sold. Where Trump Jr. probably gets off is on the "solicitation" part. Nothing was exchanged and the meeting was not solicited by the Trump team. But the fact we are debating legal details here shows how far we've come from this:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... gn-denials

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 2217dee605

And even if trump somehow survives this, his credibility and the credibility of his family and staff are completely shot. They had little credibility before, but they have zero credibility now. If the GOP doesn't primary him in 2020, they've lost all credibility as well.

[_Some Schmo]

Colluding/Conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
SEE http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... mails.html

Meeting with someone isn't necessarily "collusion." I have a friend who was closely associated with the Romney campaigns, and he said that all the candidates get dirt on everyone else. They have big files with all the information they dig up, and it's up to the campaign managers to strategize what they want to use and how they want to use it (how to release it, who to release it to, when to release it etc.) to do the most damage.

I don't think anyone is very concerned with where the information comes from, as long as it's true (and maybe some of them don't even worry about that). But obviously "demonstrably true" is better than rumors and innuendo.

So if a Russian lawyer, even with admitted connections to the Russian government tells the Trump campaign "Hey, we have some information about Clinton that could win you the campaign", I don't see what the problem is with them trying to get that information, or at least meeting with them to find out what's going on. Maybe if it they said "Hey, we have some information about Clinton and if we give it to you we want you to back off in Syria and Ukraine if you win" then that's a little more problematic.

And I would say the same thing if it was the Clinton campaign meeting with someone from another country. If someone rang up Huma Abedin and said "Hey, I'm from a country that deals with Trump and I have some information that would be devastating to his campaign", I wouldn't be surprised or scandalized if she took that meeting. I would expect it.

This isn't the same as a Russian agent saying "Hey, we've hacked the DNC and are taking other actions to throw the election your way. If you promise us to back off in Syria and Ukraine after the election, we'll throw it to you", which would be much more problematic.

Wow.

Whatever prior credibility you had just flew out the window.

I mean, why don't we just set up an office in the White House and let Putin summer there? What's the big deal, right? And if your wife or girlfriend came to me naked and opened her legs, what person wouldn't just stick his dick in? I mean, we would expect it, right?

You have lost your freakin' mind. Man, the GOP and its right wing bobble heads have done a number on people.