Trump Jr and Russian Government WORK AGAINST CLINTON

[_subgenius]

In other words, a foreign government expresses its support for a US presidential candidate by way of providing covert information....

you claim that hearsay should be considered as fact - because of a burning in your bosom.

a foreign government did not express anything...an individual that is not a government official stated that another non-government person told them that an un-named government official had information about an opponent to share.

Your assumption about a high-road in politics is amazing...illegal is altogether different from unsavory

[_subgenius]

The law specifically says "anything of value".

your refusal to accept that laws operate in context does not change the meaning of the law. Information does not have a monetary value in this respect. You cannot assign an actual "value" to whatever was NOT provided...nor can you assign a "value" to a leaked email memo. Point being no value exists on this point.
The legal reference you have cherry picked clearly notes a legal intention of value in exchange, not value in use - distinctions made in the legal definition of value. You insist that value is "monetary" by your assertion that information can be bought/sold...or by exchange. But clearly you understand that information only has a value, sometimes, in use. And the campaign FINANCE law you cite is clearly speaking to another point....but please, plenty of straws left....grab for another.

information has value.

Arguably some information has value and some information does not have value. Compare to how all Picasso paintings have value or how all gold has value.
therefore a value does not apply to all information.

Information can be sold.

Arguably some information can be sold and some information can not be sold...therefore a value can not apply to all information.

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:

No, its how far you have gone with this....a desperate media and a hysterical DNC fringe hardly amounts to anything but a lot of dust kicked up.

And even if trump somehow survives this, his credibility and the credibility of his family and staff are completely shot.

He has already survived

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.

Put your crystal ball away, you don't have that level of insight nor do you have the charisma to fake it....take a stone from your own credibility quarry and see the glass house around you.

[_Kevin Graham]

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)

So let's get this straight, opposition research costs campaigns hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet you're saying that information obtained therein cannot be considered something of value nor can it be assigned financial value. Yes, you're actually that dumb.

Your claim that "nothing was transmitted" is so, so Sean Hannity, and it rests on the assumption that the guy who has been lying about this entire ordeal, is suddenly telling the truth.

Again, from the link you provided:

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

Nevertheless, your desperate attempt at an armchair legal interpretation

It isn't my legal interpretation moron, I cited a legal expert who said exactly this. All you're doing is linking us to the law and asserting a bunch of dumb crap you want us to just take for granted.

Legal experts say Donald Trump Jr has just confessed to a federal crime

[_Kevin Graham]

From the link above:

The crucial phrase here is “other thing of value,” legal experts tell me. It means that the law extends beyond just cash donations. Foreigners are also banned from providing other kinds of contributions that would be the functional equivalent of a campaign donation, just provided in the form of services rather than goods. Like, say, damaging information the Russian government collected about Hillary Clinton.

“To the extent you’re using the resources of a foreign country to run your campaign — that’s an illegal campaign contribution,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Here’s the second important passage of the statute: “No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”

The key word from Trump Jr., according to University of California Irvine election law expert Rick Hasen, is “solicit,” which has a very specific meaning in this context. To quote the relevant statute:

A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.

Trump Jr. was clearly soliciting information that he knew was coming from a foreign source. Given that political campaigns regularly pay thousands of dollars to opposition researchers to dig up dirt, it seems like damaging information on Clinton would constitute something “of value” to the Trump campaign.

The solicitation bit is why it doesn’t matter if Trump Jr. actually got useful information. The part that’s illegal, according to the experts I spoke to, is trying to acquire dirt on Clinton from a foreign source, not successfully acquiring it. And his statement more or less admits that he did, in fact, solicit this information.

“The most recent [developments] are especially significant because they include specific statements on the record conceding the Trump campaign’s expressed interest in what the Russians could provide,” Bob Bauer, White House counsel for Barack Obama from 2010 to 2011, writes at Just Security. “Those statements show intent — a clear-cut willingness to have Russian support — and they reveal specific actions undertaken to obtain it.”

[_Some Schmo]

Just so we're straight on the current GOP:

- If a foreigner comes into the country and works without a work visa or some other form of legal US permission, even if they are working for dirt wages, paying taxes and doing the jobs no US citizen wants to do, that's a crime. Get those dirty foreigners out of here!

- If a hostile foreign government, on the other hand, has information that an American can use to screw over the campaign of another American that foreign government doesn't like and hands it over... no big deal. Please, give us all you've got.

Patriotism at its finest.

[_Chap]

Just so we're straight on the current GOP:

- If a foreigner comes into the country and works without a work visa or some other form of legal US permission, even if they are working for dirt wages, paying taxes and doing the jobs no US citizen wants to do, that's a crime. Get those dirty foreigners out of here!

- If a hostile foreign government, on the other hand, has information that an American can use to screw over the campaign of another American that foreign government doesn't like and hands it over... no big deal. Please, give us all you've got.

Patriotism at its finest.

The very rich have no country. Their money floats free of national boundaries, and they can pay to live safely and comfortably pretty well anywhere they like.

For most of us, a particular country is our home, something we cannot do without, even though we may have visited and even worked in a lot of other places, and got on well in them. For the very rich, a country is just another thing they may be able to make use of.

At the moment, the US is useful to the Trump clan. But if it ceases to be so, well then, anyone can pull out of a bad deal, can't they? Betraying or damaging the US if it serves their interests in that case would not prove they are traitors. It would just show (as Trump said in one TV debate) that they are smart.

[_Some Schmo]

At the moment, the US is useful to the Trump clan. But if it ceases to be so, well then, anyone can pull out of a bad deal, can't they? Betraying or damaging the US if it serves their interests in that case would not prove they are traitors. It would just show (as Trump said in one TV debate) that they are smart.

It certainly does feel like we're being used to further the Drumpf family fortune.

What I think is much scarier, however, is that the Drumpfs know the Russians have plenty of dirt on them, and they are being leveraged to advance Russia's agenda, not the US's. How many of these secret meetings do we still not know about? Why wasn't Drumpf Jr. appalled to find out from that email that the Russians were trying to influence the election in their favor? Maybe because he was already well aware of it?

[_The CCC]

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?

You're a stupid Troll. Now go back to playing with your diaper.

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

Put your crystal ball away, you don't have that level of insight nor do you have the charisma to fake it....take a stone from your own credibility quarry and see the glass house around you.

I've never understood this type of loyalty to political leaders and parties. Your beloved leader is in trouble and you anxiously wait for talking points from the party bosses. For the record, here is my voting record in Presidential elections: Clinton, Dole, with., Kerry, McCain, Romney, Hillary. In each case, I voted based on my personal situation at the time, and what I personally felt was best for the country. I feel no obligation to support a political party and their candidate. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

[_Some Schmo]

I've never understood this type of loyalty to political leaders and parties. Your beloved leader is in trouble and you anxiously wait for talking points from the party bosses. For the record, here is my voting record in Presidential elections: Clinton, Dole, with., Kerry, McCain, Romney, Hillary. In each case, I voted based on my personal situation at the time, and what I personally felt was best for the country. I feel no obligation to support a political party and their candidate. I guess that's the difference between you and me.

I find that exceptionally bizarre myself. I reserve my loyalty for people who deserve it. Loyalty is like trust. You get it from me right up until you no longer deserve it.

One might suspect that certain people have no ability whatsoever to think for themselves.