• 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!

Trump Jr. delivers ‘smoking gun’ to Mueller

KevinKohler said:
Well....is accepting foreign aid in a political campaign illegal, or wrong?
Click to expand...

I think it would depend a lot on what that aid was. Money? Absolutely. Moral Support? No. Information?

......:shrug: It's going to be a really tough case to make that providing information which is useful is somehow an in-kind donation. I see lots of lawsuits in the future, should that be decided, on the DNC not declaring CNN, the New York Times, etc.
 
cpwill said:
I think it would depend a lot on what that aid was. Money? Absolutely. Moral Support? No. Information?

......:shrug: It's going to be a really tough case to make that providing information which is useful is somehow an in-kind donation. I see lots of lawsuits in the future, should that be decided, on the DNC not declaring CNN, the New York Times, etc.
Click to expand...

Or former or current British spies.
 
cpwill said:
And the opposite is true.


This may become a real problem for the Trump administration. :shrug:


But, at this point, it looks more like Rachel Maddow's WE'VE GOT TRUMP'S TAXES episode. If Jr is the one releasing the documents, you'd think they'd be rather unlikely to include phrases such as "and then, we can illegally collude together to funnel foreign support to my father...."
Click to expand...

I prefer to look at evidence. The evidence provided by none other than Don Jr himself...well it looks like he knew the Russian government had something for him (or he thought so at least). Seems pretty illegal.
 
rocket88 said:
I prefer to look at evidence. The evidence provided by none other than Don Jr himself...well it looks like he knew the Russian government had something for him (or he thought so at least). Seems pretty illegal.
Click to expand...

I think you would have a hard time showing that it is illegal to learn things that help you politically, or that information that helps your campaign can be measured monetarily, and is therefore an in-kind donation.

In fact, I think that would be almost impossible to show, especially given our strong 1st Amendment protections.

Donna Brazile, for example, may have broken CNN policy when she emailed Clinton's campaign with the debate questions, but Hillary and Podesta aren't criminally liable because they failed to assign it a monetary value and report it.



The Trump campaign is made up of immoral and incompetent liars. But they are made up of immoral and incompetent liars. Don't trust any narrative that begins with "see, it was all a superbly carried off plot by those uber-disciplined, thoughtful, master-planners, the Trumps..."
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
According to the lawyer, that highlighted statement is not true.
Click to expand...

Yes, according to her public statements she is a nobody lawyer who somehow managed to coordinate a meeting with the Trump campaign through a Russian billionaire to ambush them about adoption laws and sanctions. Not very believable background. What makes more sense is that she wasn't in possession of the documents because she was there to negotiate a hand-off of the documents in exchange for a commitment regarding sanctions or other foreign policy commitment (Crimea?).
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
We're not just purity progressives. It takes a huge tent village to beat the GOP.

I'll be watching the All-Star game, and flip to Lawrence between innings.

I'll let the 11th hour summarize lying junior and waterboard hannity .
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
rocket88 said:
There are laws preventing contributions of "anything of value" from a foreign government. Clinton probably broke those laws too, but that doesn't excuse this.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought that only applied to money. Dirt on one's opponent is not money.
 
cpwill said:
I think you would have a hard time showing that it is illegal to learn things that help you politically, or that information that helps your campaign can be measured monetarily, and is therefore an in-kind donation.

In fact, I think that would be almost impossible to show, especially given our strong 1st Amendment protections.
Click to expand...
The First Amendment doesn't protect you against allegations of espionage, or violations of campaign law.

One issue is that the law doesn't just say "money." It also bars accepting services and "other things of value." If oppo research is either a service or a thing of value, then Trump Jr is in serious trouble.

Even if Trump Jr somehow manages to avoid an indictment, let's think about this for a moment. Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort got into a room with a Russian national, during the campaign, because they believed that the Russian government was going to provide assistance to the campaign. No matter how you slice it, that's pretty ****ed up.


Donna Brazile, for example, may have broken CNN policy when she emailed Clinton's campaign with the debate questions, but Hillary and Podesta aren't criminally liable because they failed to assign it a monetary value and report it.
Click to expand...
1) Donna Brazile is a US citizen.

2) There is no indication that a "thing of value" must have a monetary value.


The Trump campaign is made up of immoral and incompetent liars. But they are made up of immoral and incompetent liars. Don't trust any narrative that begins with "see, it was all a superbly carried off plot by those uber-disciplined, thoughtful, master-planners, the Trumps..."
Click to expand...
It wasn't a superb plot. It was an incompetent and utterly stupid decision to talk to someone on that basis; to get in a room with the alleged source; and, if the subsequent explanations can be believed (which may not be the case) then they got caught with a bait-and-switch. That's not skilled execution, that's amateur hour.
 
Visbek said:
The First Amendment doesn't protect you against allegations of espionage, or violations of campaign law.
Click to expand...

No, but it does protect political speech. Applying monetary value to speech/information and requiring that it be logged as part of the political process if it helps a campaign......


I just don't see that holding up.


Even if Trump Jr somehow manages to avoid an indictment, let's think about this for a moment. Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort got into a room with a Russian national, during the campaign, because they believed that the Russian government was going to provide assistance to the campaign. No matter how you slice it, that's pretty ****ed up.
Click to expand...

Yup. They are immoral, dishonest, morons, and Manafort has serious loyalty issues that should keep him from any public position of trust.

The act just doesn't seem to have been illegal, as near as I can tell :shrug:

The issue is that the law doesn't just say "money." It also bars accepting services and "other things of value." If oppo research is either a service or a thing of value, then Trump Jr is in serious trouble.
.....
1) Donna Brazile is a US citizen.

2) There is no indication that a "thing of value" must have a monetary value.
Click to expand...

My understanding for in-kind donations is that it has to be reported as it's monetary value. For example, if the NY Times gives you a free page for an ad, you have to calculate the cost of an ad taking up the entire page of the NY Times. If information passed along to help a campaign counts as an in-kind donation, then Donna Brazile's information most certainly counts, meaning that Hillary and Podesta are criminally liable for breaking campaign finance law for failing to report it.

:shrug:


Or, it's possible both campaigns were run by dishonest, unethical people who would seize any advantage - regardless of whether or not it was moral - to win.

It wasn't a superb plot. It was an incompetent and utterly stupid decision to talk to someone on that basis; to get in a room with the alleged source; and, if the subsequent explanations can be believed (which may not be the case) then they got caught with a bait-and-switch. That's not skilled execution, that's amateur hour.
Click to expand...

Yup. Kudos to the guy who Hires Only The Best People and Should Be Candidate Because He Raised Such Great Kids. :roll:
 
Roadvirus said:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought that only applied to money. Dirt on one's opponent is not money.
Click to expand...

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

Guess it depends on what an "other thing of value" is. The dirt that didn't come through here was certainly "of value."

I'd agree that it's a bit of a stretch here.
 
cpwill said:
I think you would have a hard time showing that it is illegal to learn things that help you politically, or that information that helps your campaign can be measured monetarily, and is therefore an in-kind donation.

In fact, I think that would be almost impossible to show, especially given our strong 1st Amendment protections.

Donna Brazile, for example, may have broken CNN policy when she emailed Clinton's campaign with the debate questions, but Hillary and Podesta aren't criminally liable because they failed to assign it a monetary value and report it.



The Trump campaign is made up of immoral and incompetent liars. But they are made up of immoral and incompetent liars. Don't trust any narrative that begins with "see, it was all a superbly carried off plot by those uber-disciplined, thoughtful, master-planners, the Trumps..."
Click to expand...

Well, I can't disagree that they acted very incompetently. Someone comes to you and says "Putin wants to give you gift because he supports you" (which the e-mails basically said), and that doesn't set off any red flags?
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, according to her public statements she is a nobody lawyer who somehow managed to coordinate a meeting with the Trump campaign through a Russian billionaire to ambush them about adoption laws and sanctions. Not very believable background. What makes more sense is that she wasn't in possession of the documents because she was there to negotiate a hand-off of the documents in exchange for a commitment regarding sanctions or other foreign policy commitment (Crimea?).
Click to expand...

Well, you are certainly welcome to your speculation, but you are wrong about one thing: She didn't "manage to coordinate a meeting...blah, blah, blah". She was contacted, was told that Trump Jr. was interested in her adoption agenda, by the same people who contacted Trump Jr. and told him she had something about Clinton. Turned out that neither had what each had been told the other had.

So, it wasn't she who was trying to do something. It was those two go-betweens who had some kind of agenda. What do you speculate that agenda might be?
 
rocket88 said:
I prefer to look at evidence. The evidence provided by none other than Don Jr himself...well it looks like he knew the Russian government had something for him (or he thought so at least). Seems pretty illegal.
Click to expand...

Is it against some law for a private citizen to talk to someone...even a foreign government...about a presidential candidate? If so, perhaps a news person talking to the Mexican President about the candidates is against the law, as well?

Me? I don't think so, but you may disagree with me.
 
Mycroft said:
Is it against some law for a private citizen to talk to someone...even a foreign government...about a presidential candidate? If so, perhaps a news person talking to the Mexican President about the candidates is against the law, as well?

Me? I don't think so, but you may disagree with me.
Click to expand...

According to both him and this lawyer nothing about the campaign was discussed. She used a ruse to get him there and discuss the adoption issue.
She wasn't even an government official when they talked.

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. has broken no law | Fox News

there is no smoking gun.
 
ludin said:
According to both him and this lawyer nothing about the campaign was discussed. She used a ruse to get him there and discuss the adoption issue.
She wasn't even an government official when they talked.

Gregg Jarrett: Donald Trump Jr. has broken no law | Fox News

there is no smoking gun.
Click to expand...

According to her own interview with NBC, the meeting wasn't her idea. She was called by that Russian rock star, who told her that Trump Jr. could help her with her client's issues. The "ruse" wasn't from her...or from Trump Jr. It was from Goldstone, who sent the email to Trump Jr. and the Russian rock star, who made a phone call to the lawyer.

Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya Says She Didn'''t Give Trump Jr. Info on Clinton - NBC News
 
Mycroft said:
According to her own interview with NBC, the meeting wasn't her idea. She was called by that Russian rock star, who told her that Trump Jr. could help her with her client's issues. The "ruse" wasn't from her...or from Trump Jr. It was from Goldstone, who sent the email to Trump Jr. and the Russian rock star, who made a phone call to the lawyer.

Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya Says She Didn'''t Give Trump Jr. Info on Clinton - NBC News
Click to expand...

that pretty much sinks this story then. goldstone setup the whole thing. his credibility just fell through the floor.
 
ludin said:
that pretty much sinks this story then. goldstone setup the whole thing. his credibility just fell through the floor.
Click to expand...

The real question about all of this...the question I keep asking...is "why?" Why did Goldstone and the rock star set this whole thing up?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump Jr. delivers ‘smoking gun’ to Mueller



Although Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is not [at this time] known to be a Kremlin employee, she did offer to provide scandalous information on Hillary to the Trump campaign, information that would be supplied by the Russian government.

Wisely, Donald Trump Jr. has 'lawyered up'. Donald Jr. - a Trump campaign staffer - definitely displayed an intent to collude with the Russian government
Click to expand...

His son, his son in-law and his campaign manager...but, "the president knew nothing about it." :lol:
 
there is a local burger joint that is now offering 'nothing burgers' & 'nothing rings' :lamo .............. but they cost 'something' ............
 
Mycroft said:
Is it against some law for a private citizen to talk to someone...even a foreign government...about a presidential candidate? If so, perhaps a news person talking to the Mexican President about the candidates is against the law, as well?

Me? I don't think so, but you may disagree with me.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what Trump does, you are unable to react with anything but abject worship.
 
Mycroft said:
Is it against some law for a private citizen to talk to someone...even a foreign government...about a presidential candidate? If so, perhaps a news person talking to the Mexican President about the candidates is against the law, as well?

Me? I don't think so, but you may disagree with me.
Click to expand...

It is potentially illegal for a Presidential campaign to be accepting gifts from a foreign government.
 
rocket88 said:
It doesn't matter what Trump does, you are unable to react with anything but abject worship.
Click to expand...

Worship? Nope. Looking for facts? Yep.

Bugs you, doesn't it...looking for facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom