Posted on 07/14/2017 9:10:58 AM PDT by deplorableindc
As I noted Wednesday, some people are arguing that Donald Trump Jr. committed a crime by expressing willingness to accept unspecified information that came from the Russian government and that was offered as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” (The incident happened before the hack of the Democratic National Committee was revealed, so there’s no indication that Trump Jr. thought that the offered information had been obtained illegally.) The theory is this:
1. A federal statute makes it a crime for “a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make … a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value … in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”
2. Politically damaging information, especially deliberately assembled opposition-research-style information, is a “thing of value.”
3. Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The beauty of making news out of speculation, is that the meeting can be about anything you want it to be about, and if DJT, Jr. denies the accusation, it is evidence the accusation is accurate.
Ah yes, the mark of the police state: using strained legal theories to miraculously make crimes where none existed.
John Comey was the master of this: his infamous attempt of trying to criminalize Martha Stewart’s not guilty plea - since he said she was guilty, she was clearly perjuring herself by claiming absence of guilt!
So the Thug State is now drawing lines in the sand around everything any Trump related person does, while ignoring real crimes routinely committed by his opposition (”no intent”).
Oh golly gee whiz, the Washington comPost can find lots of establishment types who have figured out that they can’t take Trump out so they’ll target his kids next.
Imagine that!
“that Donald Trump Jr. committed a crime by expressing willingness to accept unspecified information”
From all that I have read that statement is wrong. He was willing to “listen” to what she had to say. Seeing that she wanted to talk about Russian adoptions that meeting went nowhere. She also approached others in Washington with the same agenda. Dana Rohrbocker being one. There was no crime committed.
Should that be illegal - just because the party was not an American?
I think not.
Regards,
Mystery solved? Timeline shows how Russian lawyer got into US for Trump Jr. meeting!
By Brooke Singman Published July 14, 2017
Russian lawyer given special immigration status under Obama!
The Russian attorney whose campaign-season meeting with Donald Trump Jr. has caused headaches for the White House was cleared to enter the U.S. at the time of the visit by the Obama State Department, officials confirmed to Fox News late Thursday.
A brief timeline released overnight helps to resolve questions over how Natalia Veselnitskaya even had legal permission to be in the U.S. And it also shows multiple Obama agencies were involved on multiple
occasions in granting access to the lawyer after she was initially denied a visa.
According to the timeline released by the Department of Homeland Security, the Obama Justice and Homeland Security departments granted her a special type of “parole” to be in the U.S. from September 2015 through February 2016 to work on a court case in New York.
After that expired, according to DHS, the State Department issued her a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa in June 2016, according to DHS, just in time for her meeting with Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
The comments section is funny. Especially those comments by the progressives.
What I find interesting is that I don’t believe a thing has value until someone is willing to place a monetary value on it. i.e. ask for a price or offer a price. Until then it is just a thing.
Does an old broken child’s toy at a garage sale have value? It may to the rare person that has that exact same toy but theirs is broken and a part of this one will fix it.
The argument is clutching at straws and, regarding information, creates a VERY dangerous precident.
And the author says the same thing I said when this first broke. The thing of value interpretation causes the law to violate the first amendment. Information is protected speech.
“1. A federal statute makes it a crime for “a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make … a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value … in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.”
Gee, good thing HRC,WJC and Podesta didn’t receive monetary compensation for that Uranium deal... or that would be a crime.. oh wait..
These MSM and their progressive pals knew all along that Obama and the left as well as they (the MSM) were digging up crap to include hiring a foreign national (former British Spy) to spread lies/trash about Trump and Russia. They have manufactured so many lies/fake news stories- I am past giving them any chance at credible reporting of anything. This- “the Russians preferred Trump” is so full of BS as they received uranium from Hillary and pals. The Clintons (Bill) started the trashing of our military with coed BCT in the Army. We damn sure know who the Russians preferred.
Based on reading that then the only one committing a crime would be the one offering the other thing of value.
Where does it say accepting it is a crime?
What if the "politically damaging information's" "thing of value" is conclusive proof that your opponent has committed treason? Would getting that information still be a "crime"?
I think I hear liberals saying. "Yes, if the 'opponent' is our Hillary!!".
Need some help here. I read the article and understand they are trying to apply a statute that I can’t find. The closest thing I could get is this:
CFR 2635.702 - Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, orpersons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations.
I understand how this is written, but the problem I have with this is that at no time was Junior, or his father at the time of the occurance, an employee of the government. Therefore this statute does not apply to either.
Can someone please direct me to the statute they fail to quote or identify that implicates civilians and collusion of government information. They could have told Junior that Hilary has substantial gas. Is that within the guidelines of this phantom statute.
rwood
This is the heart of the issue: One party wants to criminalize opposition research and/or investigative journalism whenever they aren’t the ones doing it. The current FCC commissioner’s witch hunt against alternative media sites for “collusion with Russia” is another example of the same evil.
What’s even funnier is that no information was ever supplied. Nothing happened. THey didn’t even have what they said they had.
Imagine a vice team trying to catch a john, and the “female cop” calls trump Jr. and says, “hey, I’ve worked with prostitutes. Come on over to my place and I’ll show you a good time.” and when he gets there, it turns out to be an Amway opportunity meeting. Is he guilty of soliciting a prostitute?
The one thing that cracks me up about this is it doesn’t pass my reasonableness test. I switch the players and put Hillary in Jr’s shoes. Do I think she did anything wrong? Nope. In fact, I’d think she would be irresponsible to not check it out. End of story.
This is not talking about campaign assistance is it?
If so our dear Obama would also be in dutch... Or at least those from foreign lands who reached to America and initiated it.
There’s some point to the law. American politics ought to stay American. Democrat hands are far filthier. We probably have a “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” situation.
To determine whether they were guilty of being a witch or not, the church authorities would hold them under water. It they drowned, they were deemed innocent.
Of course, if they didn't drown after being "drowned", they were considered guilty of being a witch and burned at the stake.
Either way, the outcome was not very good for the accused.
You’re right - and then some.
They all know there was no crime here, not even close. They also know every campaign does the same thing and that oppo research is a big industry that Democrats spend millions of dollars on - but they don’t care about the hipocrisy because the control the media and that’s not going to get talked about.
THis is about dirtying up Donald Trump Jr. while they have a chance (remember about crises going to waste?). They know Jr. is an impressive man who could be a formidable candidate if he should choose to run at some future date, so now they are smearing him so they can use it later
When Rush says this in a few days you can say you read it here first ;-)
The article argues against this. People seem to be misreading the article.
Leftwing ideology is so empirically unsupportable that it can only be sustained by accustoming its supporters to view everything with blinders on.
You can't see (let alone understand) "broad consequences" wearing ideological blinders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.