• 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!

Donald Trump Jr. Releases Emails.

Jack Fabulous said:
Sure.

If the information was unverifiable it would have no value. If the information was obtained illegally and had to be turned over to the proper authorities because it would be a crime to use it, it would have no value. If the information was not actually damaging it would have no value.

There's 3 off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

No, I mean, how do you know that the idea of the information had no value to him? I've already established that the verification of the info is meaningless. Just as it's not relevant whether my rolexes are actually real after you've established your interest in buying stolen watches.
 
Cardinal said:
No, I mean, how do you know that the idea of the information had no value to him? I've already established that the verification of the info is meaningless. Just as it's not relevant whether my rolexes are actually real after you've established your interest in buying stolen watches.
Click to expand...

The idea of the information obviously interested him. Why else would he meet with her? And, no, you have not demonstrated that the verification of the info is meaningless. "Thing of value" is ambiguous.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The idea of the information obviously interested him. Why else would he meet with her? And, no, you have not demonstrated that the verification of the info is meaningless. "Thing of value" is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

"Why is thing of value" ambiguous? Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's written right there in the law. If I value something, it's a thing of value.
 
Cardinal said:
"Why is thing of value" ambiguous? Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's written right there in the law. If I value something, it's a thing of value.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does seem clear cut to you but you're not the one who is charged with interpreting how the law you are citing applies to this case.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I'm sure it does seem clear cut to you but you're not the one who is charged with interpreting how the law you are citing applies to this case.
Click to expand...

Neither are you, and yet here we are, having a discussion about it. Why is "thing of value" ambiguous to you? If you value something, is it a thing of value?
 
Cardinal said:
"Why is thing of value" ambiguous? Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's written right there in the law. If I value something, it's a thing of value.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The fact you "value" the information, or there is a personal and subjective value, doesn't mean the statutory language of "value" is satisfied. The phrase isn't defined in the statute, leaving it to an extent ambiguous. Although, context may give us an idea of its meaning, along with the statutory definition of "contribution."

The Rule of Lenity would require the court to construe any ambiguity in favor of the defendant.

There is some evidence, and arguments, for and against the information constituting as "anything of value."

I'll post links to the arguments later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
Neither are you, and yet here we are, having a discussion about it. Why is "thing of value" ambiguous to you? If you value something, is it a thing of value?
Click to expand...

"It depends upon what your definition of is is." :lamo
 
Bucky said:
Google treason search. Attempting to receive dirt on a political foe is not treason.
Click to expand...

Didn't you insist he was there to talk adoption policy just the other day? :lamo
 
Cardinal said:
Neither are you, and yet here we are, having a discussion about it. Why is "thing of value" ambiguous to you? If you value something, is it a thing of value?
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with how you or I define "thing of value" and has everything to do with how this case would be prosecuted and defended. To my knowledge there is no case that has ever come up that sets a precedent so it is going to be a decision by the justice department whether or not they want to pursue it. This is why I believe that Golden Showergate is relevant. They can't really prosecute one without prosecuting the other given the fact that both instances came to light as a result of the same investigation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
And if you want to take this further, given the incredible looseness people want to use the legal definition.
Endorsements from foreign leaders and significant people would count as well.
In the end though, campaign finance law can't override the 1st amendment.

The related supreme court case on this is the well known Citizens United vs FEC decision.
Although this case isn't directly related, it is tangentially related.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Click to expand...
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Thank you! That did even met most of the criteria I outlined in post #383. It has some similar and troubling elements to it, but it is "less than" what Trump* currently faces, as even the Politico article points out.

1) The Trump case involves the President of the United States
2) The Trump case may have involved a direct, top down effort by an enemy of the United States to meddle in a US election (the Ukraine is not an enemy)
3) The Trump issue was likely directed by Putin; there is no such indication of a state involvement by Ukraine
4) The Trump case involves Trump's campaign director and closest confidants, the Clinton issue is about "A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee". We also do not yet know if Trump knew about this before the fact or shortly thereafter.
5) The Trump case my have involved the receipt of stolen property; there is no indication that might have happened with Clinton

Donald Trump Jr email chain defense turns on Hillary Clinton - Business Insider

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - POLITICO

As to campaign finance law, you can not solicit contributions from foreign entities. Foreigners do not have 1st amendment rights.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

All around, this is far less concerning then the case before us. Nonetheless, we should investigate it to know whether improprieties may have been committed. At the end of the day, however, its a weak argument by Republicans that "she did it too".... which translates into, we admit that Trump did it.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
As to campaign finance law, you can not solicit contributions from foreign entities. Foreigners do not have 1st amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Trump Jr., however, may have a 1st Amendment right to receive the information, including information from a foreign national.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Trump Jr., however, may have a 1st Amendment right to receive the information, including information from a foreign national.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We have seen several examples of the same thing involving both campaigns and several different nations. If this is a crime then a hell of a lot of people are going to jail.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
We have seen several examples of the same thing involving both campaigns and several different nations. If this is a crime then a hell of a lot of people are going to jail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm increasingly convinced Trump Jr. has a 1st Amendment right to receive the information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Yeah, I'm increasingly convinced Trump Jr. has a 1st Amendment right to receive the information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not to mention the email said "incriminating evidence", seems to me he had a citizens duty to check it out. Just sayin
 
upsideguy said:
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Thank you! That did even met most of the criteria I outlined in post #383. It has some similar and troubling elements to it, but it is "less than" what Trump* currently faces, as even the Politico article points out.

1) The Trump case involves the President of the United States
2) The Trump case may have involved a direct, top down effort by an enemy of the United States to meddle in a US election (the Ukraine is not an enemy)
3) The Trump issue was likely directed by Putin; there is no such indication of a state involvement by Ukraine
4) The Trump case involves Trump's campaign director and closest confidants, the Clinton issue is about "A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee". We also do not yet know if Trump knew about this before the fact or shortly thereafter.
5) The Trump case my have involved the receipt of stolen property; there is no indication that might have happened with Clinton

Donald Trump Jr email chain defense turns on Hillary Clinton - Business Insider

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - POLITICO

As to campaign finance law, you can not solicit contributions from foreign entities. Foreigners do not have 1st amendment rights.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

All around, this is far less concerning then the case before us. Nonetheless, we should investigate it to know whether improprieties may have been committed. At the end of the day, however, its a weak argument by Republicans that "she did it too".... which translates into, we admit that Trump did it.
Click to expand...

Russia is not considered a legal enemy from as far as I can find.
No one knows of any real attempts at manipulating our election by Russia, there is very little evidence of that and there is no evidence of Putin directing anything.
Not to mention that the law makes no distinction between what type of foreigner it is, just that it is a foreigner.

If I'm not mistaken, information received by someone is not considered stolen property, otherwise we'd be locking journalists up for receiving stolen property.

Trump Jr isn't a foreigner.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The idea of the information obviously interested him. Why else would he meet with her? And, no, you have not demonstrated that the verification of the info is meaningless. "Thing of value" is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

we seek out things of value
we bypass that which has no value, despite how easy it might be to acquire it
in this instance, it was obvious that there was something so valued that junior and two others of team tRump sought it out by attending the meeting with a person they presumed to represent the interests of the russian government
 
NotreDame said:
Yeah, I'm increasingly convinced Trump Jr. has a 1st Amendment right to receive the information.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

exactly as much as a spy has that same right to receive protected state secrets
and as we know, spies are never prosecuted for engaging in that first amendment activity
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's not attempted treason.
You should bother to look up the Constitution.
It's the supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, attempting to gain from a foreign country's illegal hacking is not treasonous. :doh
 
Geoist said:
Ah, yes, attempting to gain from a foreign country's illegal hacking is not treasonous. :doh
Click to expand...

It's not.

It may be illegal.

It may be unethical.

It may be politically stupid.

But it's not treasonous.

Can you give the actual definition of treason?
 
Harshaw said:
It's not.

It may be illegal.

It may be unethical.

It may be politically stupid.

But it's not treasonous.

Can you give the actual definition of treason?
Click to expand...

I'll walk that back, as I did not know the Rosenbergs were actually not charged with treason. Either way, Jr. is in deep s*** and all the talk from Trumpkins saying there was no contact with the Russians is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Geoist said:
I'll walk that back, as I did not know the Rosenbergs were actually not charged with treason. Either way, Jr. is in deep s*** and all the talk from Trumpkins saying there was no contact with the Russians is laughable.
Click to expand...

Well, Jr did a stupid thing and then compounded it.

He may even have thought he was meeting with "the Russians."

But he didn't actually meet with "the Russians."
 
Harshaw said:
Well, Jr did a stupid thing and then compounded it.

He may even have thought he was meeting with "the Russians."

But he didn't actually meet with "the Russians."
Click to expand...

But what is the difference between thinking he was meeting with the Russians and actually meeting with the Russians? Would a judge care if a defendant said he actually met Chris Hansen instead of the 13 year old he was expecting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom