• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Giuliani: Nothing wrong with getting information from Russians

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nothing wrong with help from Russians, Trump lawyer says

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted there was “nothing wrong” with the president’s 2016 campaign taking information from the Russians, as House Democrats pledged stepped-up investigations into campaign misconduct and possible crimes of obstruction detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report .

Giuliani called the Trump campaign’s effort to get political help from representatives of the Russian government possibly ill-advised but not illegal.
===================================================
When he was approached by the Russians with 'dirt on Hilary', Don Jr. should have called the FBI instead of accepting the meeting. Is he aware that Russia has been our adversary for over a century?

What's wrong with this picture?
 
JacksinPA said:
Nothing wrong with help from Russians, Trump lawyer says

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted there was “nothing wrong” with the president’s 2016 campaign taking information from the Russians, as House Democrats pledged stepped-up investigations into campaign misconduct and possible crimes of obstruction detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report .

Giuliani called the Trump campaign’s effort to get political help from representatives of the Russian government possibly ill-advised but not illegal.
===================================================
When he was approached by the Russians with 'dirt on Hilary', Don Jr. should have called the FBI instead of accepting the meeting. Is he aware that Russia has been our adversary for over a century?

What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

Giuliani: "Truth isn't truth."
 
C4z9_h1UMAALg9v.jpg


;)

 
If there was nothing wrong with it, nothing illegal, nothing improper, why in God's name did the Trump campaign and Trump himself feel compelled to lie about it?
 
Apparently there is nothing wrong with getting information from Russia because Hillary Clinton did it and no one cares nor did she get into any trouble for it.
 
dobieg said:
Apparently there is nothing wrong with getting information from Russia because Hillary Clinton did it and no one cares nor did she get into any trouble for it.
Click to expand...

What About What About Hillary....Can't defend that idiot Giuliani I see
 
JacksinPA said:
Nothing wrong with help from Russians, Trump lawyer says

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted there was “nothing wrong” with the president’s 2016 campaign taking information from the Russians, as House Democrats pledged stepped-up investigations into campaign misconduct and possible crimes of obstruction detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report .

Giuliani called the Trump campaign’s effort to get political help from representatives of the Russian government possibly ill-advised but not illegal.
===================================================
When he was approached by the Russians with 'dirt on Hilary', Don Jr. should have called the FBI instead of accepting the meeting. Is he aware that Russia has been our adversary for over a century?

What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

When you're a lawyer, you can speak in technicalities, as in this case Guiliani did. Technically, there is nothing in the statutes that specifically deals with a prohibition on such information being accepted. The statute is vague, but the term "contribution" does not envision information as a commodity. A "contribution", it can be argued, was meant to encompass something of monetary value such as a service provided that normally would have to be paid for by a campaign and if given for free would have to be itemized by its monetary value.

Technically legal is not the same as morally acceptable. But one doesn't have to be morally acceptable in one's actions to stay within the letter of the law. As Guiliani went on to say, if he'd been offered such information from such a source, he would have, out of an abundance of caution, not accepted and likely contacted the FBI to inform them of the Russian overtures.

If you want to carry the argument further, if the source of the information had been someone connected with the British or Canadian governments there would be no difference.

Now, if there had been some quid pro quo involved, such as the exchange of a favourable decision on the part of Trump if elected President, and that could be proven, you'd have a solid argument that the action was illegal. However, as Mueller stated in his report, there was no such evidence.
 
dobieg said:
Apparently there is nothing wrong with getting information from Russia because Hillary Clinton did it and no one cares nor did she get into any trouble for it.
Click to expand...

tumblr_oz4maeJwWf1qinrtgo1_500.jpg


;)

tumblr_pomtq6JhEM1qinrtgo1_640.jpg
 
JacksinPA said:
Nothing wrong with help from Russians, Trump lawyer says

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani insisted there was “nothing wrong” with the president’s 2016 campaign taking information from the Russians, as House Democrats pledged stepped-up investigations into campaign misconduct and possible crimes of obstruction detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report .

Giuliani called the Trump campaign’s effort to get political help from representatives of the Russian government possibly ill-advised but not illegal.
===================================================
When he was approached by the Russians with 'dirt on Hilary', Don Jr. should have called the FBI instead of accepting the meeting. Is he aware that Russia has been our adversary for over a century?

What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...

The FBI was already collecting dirt on Trump through the Steele dossier. As was the hero McCain,the DOJ and the media.

Were they all in the wrong to accept the dirt?
 
CanadaJohn said:
When you're a lawyer, you can speak in technicalities, as in this case Guiliani did. Technically, there is nothing in the statutes that specifically deals with a prohibition on such information being accepted. The statute is vague, but the term "contribution" does not envision information as a commodity. A "contribution", it can be argued, was meant to encompass something of monetary value such as a service provided that normally would have to be paid for by a campaign and if given for free would have to be itemized by its monetary value.

Technically legal is not the same as morally acceptable. But one doesn't have to be morally acceptable in one's actions to stay within the letter of the law. As Guiliani went on to say, if he'd been offered such information from such a source, he would have, out of an abundance of caution, not accepted and likely contacted the FBI to inform them of the Russian overtures.

If you want to carry the argument further, if the source of the information had been someone connected with the British or Canadian governments there would be no difference.

Now, if there had been some quid pro quo involved, such as the exchange of a favourable decision on the part of Trump if elected President, and that could be proven, you'd have a solid argument that the action was illegal. However, as Mueller stated in his report, there was no such evidence.
Click to expand...

The Clinton campaign emails were stolen property. Receiving stolen property is illegal no where you try to hide or who gives it to you. Giuliani, as a former Federal prosecutor, knows this. He lied.
 
Last edited:
JacksinPA said:
The Clinton campaign emails were stolen property. Receiving stolen property is illegal no where you try to hide or who gives it to you. Giuliani, as a former Federal prosecutor, knows this. He lied.
Click to expand...

The Trump Tower meeting with the Russians where Don Jr. had agreed because he 'loved' getting dirt on Hillary, constitutes the crime of conspiracy. They wanted something stolen (the Clinton campaign emails) & the mere fact that they acted toward the end of getting them constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
 
JacksinPA said:
The Clinton campaign emails were stolen property. Receiving stolen property is illegal no where you try to hide or who gives it to you. Giuliani, as a former Federal prosecutor, knows this. He lied.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe you're wrong - receipt of stolen information is not a crime. It's why newpapers and journalists are not charged when they publish stolen information.
 
JacksinPA said:
The Trump Tower meeting with the Russians where Don Jr. had agreed because he 'loved' getting dirt on Hillary, constitutes the crime of conspiracy. They wanted something stolen (the Clinton campaign emails) & the mere fact that they acted toward the end of getting them constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Again, you're wrong - Mueller in his report clearly stated that there was no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign sought to have others steal information. You can't have a criminal conspiracy unless parties conspire to commit a crime. It's why, even though Trump Jr may have actively sought to receive information damaging to Clinton, Mueller did not seek an indictment of him for any crime.

You may, like most liberals and Democrats, want your fantasies to be true, but Mueller was not able to create what wasn't true, much as you were depending on him to do so.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, I believe you're wrong - receipt of stolen information is not a crime. It's why newpapers and journalists are not charged when they publish stolen information.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong!


18 U.S. Code SS 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any goods, wares, or merchandise, or securities, of the value of $500 or more, which have crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; or....


Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The press (but not Trump Jr) has the protection of the first amendment, and I believe that even this protection does not guarantee protection from publishing every type of hacked information.

An opposition research information is a type of good with monetary value for which people normally pay in order to get it

The argument in Trump's Jr case, I assume, is not that it is not a crime to receive stolen emails, but that he did not know that the type of dirt offered to him by the Russians was stolen.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Again, you're wrong - Mueller in his report clearly stated that there was no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign sought to have others steal information. You can't have a criminal conspiracy unless parties conspire to commit a crime. It's why, even though Trump Jr may have actively sought to receive information damaging to Clinton, Mueller did not seek an indictment of him for any crime.

You may, like most liberals and Democrats, want your fantasies to be true, but Mueller was not able to create what wasn't true, much as you were depending on him to do so.
Click to expand...

Report said trump and his goons...........NOT exonerated...Try reading for once
 
pamak said:
Actually, you are wrong!


18 U.S. Code SS 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any goods, wares, or merchandise, or securities, of the value of $500 or more, which have crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; or....


Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The press (but not Trump Jr) has the protection of the first amendment, and I believe that even this protection does not guarantee protection from publishing every type of hacked information.

An opposition research information is a type of good with monetary value for which people normally pay in order to get it

The argument in Trump's Jr case, I assume, is not that it is not a crime to receive stolen emails, but that he did not know that the type of dirt offered to him by the Russians was stolen.
Click to expand...

These trump ass kissers seem to making up their own laws
 
CanadaJohn said:
When you're a lawyer, you can speak in technicalities, as in this case Guiliani did. Technically, there is nothing in the statutes that specifically deals with a prohibition on such information being accepted. The statute is vague, but the term "contribution" does not envision information as a commodity. A "contribution", it can be argued, was meant to encompass something of monetary value such as a service provided that normally would have to be paid for by a campaign and if given for free would have to be itemized by its monetary value.

Technically legal is not the same as morally acceptable. But one doesn't have to be morally acceptable in one's actions to stay within the letter of the law. As Guiliani went on to say, if he'd been offered such information from such a source, he would have, out of an abundance of caution, not accepted and likely contacted the FBI to inform them of the Russian overtures.

If you want to carry the argument further, if the source of the information had been someone connected with the British or Canadian governments there would be no difference.

Now, if there had been some quid pro quo involved, such as the exchange of a favourable decision on the part of Trump if elected President, and that could be proven, you'd have a solid argument that the action was illegal. However, as Mueller stated in his report, there was no such evidence.
Click to expand...

When you're a lawyer like Giuliani, you know when you speak that 95% of trump supporters will just think, "see! There's nothing wrong with accepting information from Russia! A lawyer said so."

What Rudy Giuliani is doing is setting the bar even lower fooling people into believing it's okay to share information with an adversary and enemy of democracy.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, I believe you're wrong - receipt of stolen information is not a crime. It's why newpapers and journalists are not charged when they publish stolen information.
Click to expand...

Confidential internal political campaign documents are not private property? Just like plans for a new missile are not private property? The laws in Canada must be off a bit for you to come to that conclusion.

Trump's son & staff went to a lot of trouble to have that meeting with the Russians where 'dirt' on Hilary was promised. That shows intent. They are guilty of a criminal conspiracy. Only intent is necessary to prove the charge. They intended to close this crooked deal. That's enough.
 
Last edited:
Rudy is just daring Congress to impeach.
 
HumblePi said:
When you're a lawyer like Giuliani, you know when you speak that 95% of trump supporters will just think, "see! There's nothing wrong with accepting information from Russia! A lawyer said so."

What Rudy Giuliani is doing is setting the bar even lower fooling people into believing it's okay to share information with an adversary and enemy of democracy.
Click to expand...

Well Clinton did. The Obama Admin also used it in court.
You can get off your high horse now.
 
pamak said:
Actually, you are wrong!


18 U.S. Code SS 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Whoever receives, possesses, conceals, stores, barters, sells, or disposes of any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money of the value of $5,000 or more, or pledges or accepts as security for a loan any goods, wares, or merchandise, or securities, of the value of $500 or more, which have crossed a State or United States boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken, knowing the same to have been stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken; or....


Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

The press (but not Trump Jr) has the protection of the first amendment, and I believe that even this protection does not guarantee protection from publishing every type of hacked information.

An opposition research information is a type of good with monetary value for which people normally pay in order to get it

The argument in Trump's Jr case, I assume, is not that it is not a crime to receive stolen emails, but that he did not know that the type of dirt offered to him by the Russians was stolen.
Click to expand...

Actually I heard somewhere that how the Trump people were able to avoid being on the hook for the sale or receipt of stolen goods is that courts have thus far interpreted goods as to mean "tangible" things or objects. Currently computer code, programs or data are not considered to be tangible things. Even if stolen via unauthorized access to a secure or private system. It would appear that this particular US code will need to be amended or updated so as to be contemporaneous with the times and world that we live in now. So essentially they were spared from charges by a legal technicality.
 
dobieg said:
Apparently there is nothing wrong with getting information from Russia because Hillary Clinton did it and no one cares nor did she get into any trouble for it.
Click to expand...

67245092d1543447585-bill-protect-special-counsels-such-robert-mueller-blocked-senate-floor-again-hillarycard-jpeg
 
Atomic Kid said:
Actually I heard somewhere that how the Trump people were able to avoid being on the hook for the sale or receipt of stolen goods is that courts have thus far interpreted goods as to mean "tangible" things or objects. Currently computer code, programs or data are not considered to be tangible things. Even if stolen via unauthorized access to a secure or private system. It would appear that this particular US code will need to be amended or updated so as to be contemporaneous with the times and world that we live in now. So essentially they were spared from charges by a legal technicality.
Click to expand...

They probably also got off the hook because they never actually had either the Clinton or DNC emails...
 
Athanasius68 said:
They probably also got off the hook because they never actually had either the Clinton or DNC emails...
Click to expand...

The Trump people certainly knew as early as April 2016 that the Russians were in possession of democratic emails and or documents and made an offer to share them with them. Any reasonable person would know that these emails would have had to been stolen. So they knew that a possible crime with national security implications had been committed and did nothing to alert any US law enforcement or intelligence entity of it. As any truly concerned and patriotic American citizen would and should do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom