Posted on 07/12/2017 1:38:12 PM PDT by Cubs Fan
I think you have the best practical advice. If approached by anyone not a citizen of the United States, who says they have dirt, it’s best to go through intermediaries. For example, had I been Don Jr. in this situation, here’s how I would have played it:
You get the e-mail from the British intermediary. You thank them politely for the offer. You tell them that you will consider the offer, and that they can expect to hear from someone regarding the offer. You have a fairly low level staff person contact a staff person of a “friendly” news source, say Sean Hannity. Tell them about the source, and have Hannity’s people contact them.
If they want to play ball that way, then let it happen. If they don’t want to, then the whole deal was either a set up or a shakedown. You and your candidate do not get any stink on you under those circumstances.
None illegal by themselves.
Foreign agents (represnting another country’s interests in America) are required to register with the DOJ, and to disclose certain information.
Yes. Thank Gd our first family are amateurs. How refreshing that an honest businessman like Don Jr wasn’t slimy enough to know to send a surrogate! He is forgiven! He had no idea just how corrupt the world of politics is. Even the President is stunned and he was no neophyte.
What if there were damning information about Hillary and it was giving and what if that information was treasonous and against the law? What would they do?
1. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, but no information changes hands. legal or illegal?
If no information changed hands, nothing happened. LEGAL
2. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, but asks for no compensation. Legal or illegal?
As long as information was legally obtained and there was no law against receipt of that information on some technicality, LEGAL.(Sometimes there are two governments involved. One may not recognize the information as top secret. The other may, and may have rules in place to forbid it.)
3. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, receives financial compensation. Legal or illegal?
As long as information was legally obtained and there was no law against receipt of that information or paying for it on some technicality, LEGAL. (Again: Sometimes there are two governments involved. One may not recognize the information as top secret. The other may, and may have rules in place to forbid it.)
4. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, but gets no compensation. Legal or Illegal?
The person obtaining the information could be seen as being the party of a conspiracy to obtain classified information. A foreign government or even our own could deem that actionable. Governments have a duty to keep certain things confidential.
5. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, gets financially compensated. Legal or illegal?
This could up the anti on number four, in that money changed hands. This would seem to make a case against the third party (the one paying for the information), more sustainable.
We're all anti-government on some level. We respect the government but want it to but out most of the time.
The best way to think about this, so we don't get too jacked up against the government, is how we looked at it when Hillary Clinton put classified information on an insecure server. We didn't approve of that at all.
There are limits to how information is obtained, handled, and disbursed. I think that is reasoned.
“I’d turn it over to the FBI”
You trust Comey?
I am trying to think of a criminal statute for this. Attempted acceptance of a solicitation to freely provide negative facts on an opposing candidate from an individual who has no such facts and does not provide any in a 15 minute meeting. Seems to me the individual showing up for the meeting could have been alleged “Trump cheerleader” Putin himself and we still do not have a crime unless a definitive quid pro quo of government favors can be proven.Oh, that’s right, Trump was not even an elected official and had no government favors to barter.That’s a Hillary specialty.Collusion,you say. Collusion how? You mean sometime thereafter Trump allowed Putin access to DNC systems and allowed them to hack Podesta’s e mails and distribute them publicly and did not punish the Russians. Oh, that’s right Trump had no access to DNC systems and had no authority to punish the Russians. That’s an Obama thing. Was there ever a presidential candidate campaign staff in history that would not take such a meeting including Hillary and Obama?Wasn’t this called campaign politics in the old days? Now all of a sudden the DNC mouthpiece NYT is trying to create a somethinggate narrative for it.This does not even rise to the level of fake news. It is no news.
If somebody called you and wanted to show you a video of Hillary Clinton during election night would you invite them to your office?
Collusion is secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others in order to gain an advantage. It has nothing to do with immediate compensation or lack of compensation, according to my limited understanding. Long term gain works as well.
Also, I think that just making the plan to cooperate doesn't make it collusion if the plan is not implemented. But if the plan is implemented, it doesn't need to be successful for the collusion to have occurred as a matter of definition.
One last thing: Collusion is not necessarily illegal. I can collude with my SIL to plan a surprise party for my brother without breaking any laws. It is the purpose of the collusion that makes it legal or illegal.
Two links from Law Newz dicussing this issue:
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/why-donald-trump-jr-is-innocent-period/
http://lawnewz.com/opinion/sorry-but-the-constitution-actually-protects-trump-jr-from-prosecution/
From the first link:
The Code of Federal Regulations makes the law immunizing Trump Jr.’s actions precisely clear: any foreign national individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The law provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone on the campaign. See 11 CFR 100.74. For example, as the Federal Election Commission advises all, “an individual can provide volunteer services to a candidate or party without considering the value of those service a contribution to the candidate or party.” Section 30121 of Title 52 does not apply to voluntary activity or services. The thing “of value” must be actual money, or its transferable equivalent, not a volunteer of services or information.
Definition of collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
So taking a meeting with a person with the intent of getting factual details on one’s opponent is not illegal and not intended to cheat or deceive. It’s intended to gain knowledge that can then be shared to allow the voters to make a more informed decision.
Just like when the leftist Hollyweird types were offering rewards for anyone who could produce dirt on Trump. Except DJT Jr. wasn’t offering to pay anyone for information.
Not collusion, not illegal, not a unique or even unusual situation. Stuff like this probably happens every election cycle.
The Clinton campaign took and used info from the Ukraine. No one called that collusion
An exchange of information isn’t a “thing of value.”
We value freedom of speech and freedom of association.
There was no criminal conspiracy here and no intention to perpetrate a crime.
At worst, dirt on Hillary would be politically embarrassing to her.
Like I always like to say about politics, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
To me, it looks like D.T., Jr. was set up by the opposition, with the approach to him crafted by Clinton operatives with the benefit of access to US intel material on the Trump family and campaign. I suspect that the key point of the maneuver was to implicate him as eager to get help from a foreign government.
Forgot one:
6. A seated, sworn President asks an OFFICIAL or the Russian government to give him some “space” because he will have much more “flexibility” after the election.
****
“I understand your message about space,” replied Medvedev, who will hand over the presidency to Putin in May.
“This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama said, expressing confidence that he would win a second term.
“I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” said Medvedev, Putin’s protégé and long considered number two in Moscow’s power structure.
Bill Clinton and Al Gore took political donations from the Chinese Communists and no one cared on the left or in the media open your back and always forgiven after the election nice long if you can get it
“-———open your back and always forgiven after the election nice long if you can get it”
Huh ?
.
Voice to text, ill straighten it out later
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.