Donald Trump Jr. Releases Emails.

[Harshaw]

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?

Well, that depends on what the specific charge is.

If he didn't actually meet with "the Russians," then there's no "collusion" with the Russians.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Well, that depends on what the specific charge is.

If he didn't actually meet with "the Russians," then there's no "collusion" with the Russians.

I posted this reply in a different thread but it applies to this thread as well.

I think your focus here is a little narrow given the broad scope of "the investigation". Let's take a look at what has been revealed thus far.

We have clear evidence that Donald Trump Jr. along with Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney with the hopes of receiving damaging information on Hillary Clinton. The information never existed in the first place and the meeting ended after 20 minutes.

We have clear evidence that Democratic political operatives worked directly with the Ukrainian government in an effort to damage Donald Trump.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - POLITICO

We also have clear evidence that the Golden Showergate dossier was put together by a firm hired to do opposition research for a Republican and then later was hired by a Democratic client for the same purpose.

In this case, the request for opposition research on Donald Trump came from one of his Republican opponents in the primary campaign. The research firm then hired one of its sub-contractors who it used regularly on all things Russian: a retired western European former counter-intelligence official, with a long history of dealing with the shadow world of Moscow’s spooks and siloviki (securocrats).
What we know – and what's true – about the Trump-Russia dossier
Read more

By the time the contractor had started his research, however, the Republican primary was over. The original client had dropped out, but the firm that had hired him had found a new, Democratic client. This was not necessarily the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic National Committee. Opposition research is frequently financed by wealthy individuals who have donated all they can and are looking for other ways to help.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-report-opposition-research-john-mccain


Of the three examples of obtaining or attempting to obtain information from a foreign source to damage a political opponent the one involving Donald Trump Jr is by far the least egregious.

They can't very well pursue the Trump Jr meeting without pursuing the other two. They all occurred during the same campaign and the information about each came to light as a result of the same investigation.

 

[upsideguy]

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

That is not a 1st amendment right. The 1st amendment protects political speech and freedom of the press. Trump is not a member of the press, nor does this have anything do with Trump, Jrs. right to express political speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Instead, this is about looking to receive stolen goods or have the campaign aided by a foreign entity, each would be crimes.

 

[Harshaw]

I posted this reply in a different thread but it applies to this thread as well.



They can't very well pursue the Trump Jr meeting without pursuing the other two. They all occurred during the same campaign and the information about each came to light as a result of the same investigation.

Well, there's no question the scenarios are very similar. If it's a crime, it's a crime, and everyone guilty should swing.

If the people who have pushing hard against Trump have no stomach for pursuing those other incidents, that says a lot

 

[hanger4]

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

Where in Jr's emails is there mention of "illegal hacking" ?? All I saw was "incriminating evidence" on HRC supposedly documented.

 

[hanger4]

That is not a 1st amendment right. The 1st amendment protects political speech and freedom of the press. Trump is not a member of the press, nor does this have anything do with Trump, Jrs. right to express political speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Instead, this is about looking to receive stolen goods or have the campaign aided by a foreign entity, each would be crimes.

What the hell is with this stolen goods BS ?? There's no mention of that, only "incriminating evidence".

 

[Unitedwestand13]

What the hell is with this stolen goods BS ?? There's no mention of that, only "incriminating evidence".

How on earth did a Russian get her hands on information related to Hilliary Clinton?

 

[hanger4]

How on earth did a Russian get her hands on information related to Hilliary Clinton?

Seriously ?? Any number of ways.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

How on earth did a Russian get her hands on information related to Hilliary Clinton?

I can think of dozens of scenarios off the top of my head. Anything tied to the Clintons which occurred in Russia or with Russians is possible.

 

[NotreDame]

That is not a 1st amendment right. The 1st amendment protects political speech and freedom of the press. Trump is not a member of the press, nor does this have anything do with Trump, Jrs. right to express political speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Instead, this is about looking to receive stolen goods or have the campaign aided by a foreign entity, each would be crimes.

To the contrary, receiving information has long been recognized by the Court as a 1st Amendment right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hanger4]

I can think of dozens of scenarios off the top of my head. Anything tied to the Clintons which occurred in Russia or with Russians is possible.

Something tied to the Clinton Foundation was the first think that came to my mind.

 

[Harshaw]

That is not a 1st amendment right. The 1st amendment protects political speech and freedom of the press. Trump is not a member of the press, nor does this have anything do with Trump, Jrs. right to express political speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Instead, this is about looking to receive stolen goods or have the campaign aided by a foreign entity, each would be crimes.

Justice Douglas, Griswold v. Connecticut:

In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of
the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available
knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes
not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute,
the right to receive, the right to read and freedom of inquiry,
freedom of thought, and freedom to teach–indeed the freedom
of the entire university community.

 

[NotreDame]

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

Your analogy fails. First, we aren't discussing "State secrets" and second, we aren't discussing "spies."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

To the contrary, receiving information has long been recognized by the Court as a 1st Amendment right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell that to Chinese spies sent to jail for providing information about US weapons to the Chinese. I am sure they would like to know that what they did was covered under the 1st amendment and that they should be set free

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Your analogy fails. First, we aren't discussing "State secrets" and second, we aren't discussing "spies."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are discussing information, that was not legally provided to outside parties and obtained illegally. It could be nude pictures on a computer, obtaining those and distributing them without the original owners permission is a crime.

 

[NotreDame]

Tell that to Chinese spies sent to jail for providing information about US weapons to the Chinese. I am sure they would like to know that what they did was covered under the 1st amendment and that they should be set free

We aren't discussing spies and States secrets.

Your remarks do not reverse SCOUTS' long recognized right to receive information. I didn't say a right to steal State's secrets or commit conspire to commit espionage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

You are discussing information, that was not legally provided to outside parties and obtained illegally. It could be nude pictures on a computer, obtaining those and distributing them without the original owners permission is a crime.

Useless information. It is not alleged Trump Jr committed some illegal act to originally access and obtain the information.

You are assuming the existence of facts which may not exist. You assume the information to be given to Trump Jr. was illegally obtained by a third party. At the moment, there is no evidence the information to be disclosed to Trump Jr. was illegally obtained.

In addition, your example doesn't present a crime. If John hacked a computer, and retrieved nude photos of an adult girl, and sent those to his friends, I'm doubtful his friends, in receiving those photos, have committed any crime. John may have committed a crime but not his friends. In this example, John's friends are parallel to Trump Jr., they are both receiving information. But they've committed no crime.

Tell me, what crime has John's friends committed in receiving those photos?

There is a 1st Amendment right to receive information. Your non-parallel examples of spies stealing State's secrets, spies coming into possession of State's secrets, assuming facts that are not known to exist, and referring to the thief when Trump Jr. isn't the thief, makes for a vacuous refutation but a comedic rebuttal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

What the hell is with this stolen goods BS ?? There's no mention of that, only "incriminating evidence".

He, along with Lord what's his face, are assuming facts that aren't presently known to exist. They are assuming the information to be shared with Trump Jr. was stolen. There's presently no evidence the information was stolen.

This all a part of their "alternative facts" modus operandi, advocated by Ms. Conway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Geoist]

Well, that depends on what the specific charge is.

If he didn't actually meet with "the Russians," then there's no "collusion" with the Russians.

So if the dirty old pervert didn't actually meet with a 13 year old there was no crime committed?

 

[Harshaw]

So if the dirty old pervert didn't actually meet with a 13 year old there was no crime committed?

What specific crime do you think was committed here?

 

[upsideguy]

To the contrary, receiving information has long been recognized by the Court as a 1st Amendment right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[Geoist]

Where in Jr's emails is there mention of "illegal hacking" ?? All I saw was "incriminating evidence" on HRC supposedly documented.

Whether it was through illegal hacking or some other means, Jr. would have known the Russians used nefarious methods to obtain the information.

 

[Geoist]

What specific crime do you think was committed here?

There are a number of laws he may have violated including federal campaign law, computer abuse laws, and laws against fraud (if he lied to authorities, which is most likely the case).

 

[hanger4]

Whether it was through illegal hacking or some other means, Jr. would have known the Russians used nefarious methods to obtain the information.

You don't know that, the incriminating evidence could have been gathered any number of legitimate ways.

I'm not saying it was or wasn't, but there's no reason to stretch the truth into an untruth.

 

[Harshaw]

There are a number of laws he may have violated including federal campaign law, computer abuse laws, and laws against fraud (if he lied to authorities, which is most likely the case).

The fact pattern doesn't seem to fit any of those. They require actually doing something, not just thinking you're doing something.