Forums - Politics Discussion - NYT : "Trump Jr. Was Told in Email of Russian Effort to Aid Campaign"

Collusion?

yes 116 50.43%
 
no 22 9.57%
 
too early to tell? 35 15.22%
 
fake news 57 24.78%
 
Total:230
JRPGfan said:
Sharu said:
Do you understand that its a simple manipulation from NYT? Russian lawyer≠Russian government. Its ridiculous that anti-Russian hystery is so high now.

Trump Jr's email he himself posted, mentions that the information he ll be handed is on behalf of the russian goverment.

Plus there are so many links from all the people there to the russian goverment (intelligence communities say so).

Also she (the laywer) admitted to it (after denying it at first).

 

Give me links for this, please? I'd like to look it thru myself. 



Around the Network
Sharu said:
JRPGfan said:

Trump Jr's email he himself posted, mentions that the information he ll be handed is on behalf of the russian goverment.

Plus there are so many links from all the people there to the russian goverment (intelligence communities say so).

Also she (the laywer) admitted to it (after denying it at first).

 

Give me links for this, please? I'd like to look it thru myself. 

Sure i ll try finding some of this stuff.

 

1)

his twitter:   DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413

One of the emails said this:

"Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best
Rob Goldstone"

 

2)  watch this thing (explains why there are ties to russian intelligence ect):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKfQFXJmHs4

 

3) (read)  http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/342109-russian-lawyer-who-met-with-trump-jr-was-in-touch-with-top-russian



Sharu said:
JRPGfan said:

Trump Jr's email he himself posted, mentions that the information he ll be handed is on behalf of the russian goverment.

Plus there are so many links from all the people there to the russian goverment (intelligence communities say so).

Also she (the laywer) admitted to it (after denying it at first).

 

Give me links for this, please? I'd like to look it thru myself. 

So basically you made and shared an opinion without actually viewing the information.  You know this is why we are hear today with people defending Trump and his administration.  People are quick to form an opinion without first making sure they have all the information.



Aeolus451 said:
Final-Fan said:

Thank you.  That's a fair caveat.  Here is the context.  Do you still agree that the aforementioned definition of solicit is applicable?  If not, why not? 

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
  (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

And here is paragraph (1):  (It shall be unlawful for)
  (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

In that context, no in my opinion. He didn't receive a donation or a contribution to the campaign nor was he solicited for a donation or contribution to the campaign in exchange for unspecified favors. The meeting was for evidence of something unlawful Hillary did with Russia. It would decimate Hillary's campaign if the evidence was shown to the world but that wouldn't be a direct contribution to the campaign of trump.

They won't be able to get the son of a president with this. Also, this sort of stuff is silly because Hillary (and likely many other candidates liketly including trump) received alot of campaign donations from individuals or companies from other countries except that they weren't "foreign nationals" at the time. Politicans don't adhere to the spirit of this law in any sense except to the letter of it.  Was this law created before the internet became a thing or before you could wire money? 

(4)Knowingly means that a person must:

(i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;

(ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or

(iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.

This part still stands and is the finiance rules that govern presidental campaigns.  It clearly states you only have to know which is a clear violation.  Also as we debate on this topic it appears that a group has already file a complaint against Donald Jr, Jared and Paul.  So we will actually see if that part in the rules will apply and have weight.



JRPGfan said:

Machiavellian wow....

The 17 House Democrats asked Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a Wednesday letter whether the involvement of Veselnitskaya, who they called a "Kremlin-connected attorney," may have helped prompt the settlement, given her meeting with Donald Trump Jr.

“The connections here are too substantial to ignore. Why was a Russian money-laundering case involving more than $230 million dismissed without explanation?"

I guess it paid off for Natalia Veselnitskaya to meet with Donald Trump Jr.

 

Thanks for giving me another reason to hate Jeff Sessions. He and his southern accent can go fuck themselves.

Around the Network
specialk said:
Wiibaron said:

So the people who want you to see info that is bad about your opponent are 'on your side'? Has this ever been not true? EVER? The info getter doesn't jump at the chance and waits a week. This is all totally BEFORE the getter of the info knows that info will even matter in the future[ This was before conventions.]Then the info givers don't give that/any info and try to sell you a timeshare instead[adoption]. Then later, the duped info getter tells everyone what happened. How about we try to find out what that damaging info was? That might be the actual unbiased/real story here...

What are you talking about?

Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. about an offer from the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" and described it as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump".

Trump Jr. replied literally 17 minutes later;

"Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?"

 The last sentence is exactly what I was talking about. Wonder if the Hillary people waited a week to fly to the Ukraine to get their 'oposistion info' from them?



Wiibaron said:
specialk said:

What are you talking about?

Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. about an offer from the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" and described it as "part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump".

Trump Jr. replied literally 17 minutes later;

"Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?"

 The last sentence is exactly what I was talking about. Wonder if the Hillary people waited a week to fly to the Ukraine to get their 'oposistion info' from them?

 

So we are basically down to comparing shit to shit. Seems like Trump shit stinks more.

Aeolus451 said:
Final-Fan said:

Thank you.  That's a fair caveat.  Here is the context.  Do you still agree that the aforementioned definition of solicit is applicable?  If not, why not? 

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
  (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

And here is paragraph (1):  (It shall be unlawful for)
  (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

In that context, no in my opinion. He didn't receive a donation or a contribution to the campaign nor was he solicited for a donation or contribution to the campaign in exchange for unspecified favors. The meeting was for evidence of something unlawful Hillary did with Russia. It would decimate Hillary's campaign if the evidence was shown to the world but that wouldn't be a direct contribution to the campaign of trump.

They won't be able to get the son of a president with this. Also, this sort of stuff is silly because Hillary (and likely many other candidates liketly including trump) received alot of campaign donations from individuals or companies from other countries except that they weren't "foreign nationals" at the time. Politicans don't adhere to the spirit of this law in any sense except to the letter of it.  Was this law created before the internet became a thing or before you could wire money? 

1.  When you agreed that "going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing", did you not understand that going to a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a thing is a fact that doesn't change based on whether or not you were successful in obtaining that thing? 

2.  Isn't it contradictory to (a) assert that such information would not be "money or other thing of value", yet (b) admit that the information would be devastating to Mr. Trump's political opponent?  (In other words, why wouldn't that information be of immense value to Mr. Trump, and therefore forbidden for him to receive or seek to receive from foreign nationals?)

3.  Let's keep separate the question of whether Mr. Trump has broken the law and the question of whether others have broken the law—these are different questions.  Right now we are working on the first of these questions; if you want to admit that he has done so in your honest opinion (not simply for the sake of agrument), we can move on to whether that fact is unusual among politicians (especially, whether Mrs. Clinton has also done comparable or worse law-breaking). 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
Aeolus451 said:

In that context, no in my opinion. He didn't receive a donation or a contribution to the campaign nor was he solicited for a donation or contribution to the campaign in exchange for unspecified favors. The meeting was for evidence of something unlawful Hillary did with Russia. It would decimate Hillary's campaign if the evidence was shown to the world but that wouldn't be a direct contribution to the campaign of trump.

They won't be able to get the son of a president with this. Also, this sort of stuff is silly because Hillary (and likely many other candidates liketly including trump) received alot of campaign donations from individuals or companies from other countries except that they weren't "foreign nationals" at the time. Politicans don't adhere to the spirit of this law in any sense except to the letter of it.  Was this law created before the internet became a thing or before you could wire money? 

1.  When you agreed that "going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing", did you not understand that going to a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a thing is a fact that doesn't change based on whether or not you were successful in obtaining that thing? 

2.  Isn't it contradictory to (a) assert that such information would not be "money or other thing of value", yet (b) admit that the information would be devastating to Mr. Trump's political opponent?  (In other words, why wouldn't that information be of immense value to Mr. Trump, and therefore forbidden for him to receive or seek to receive from foreign nationals?)

3.  Let's keep separate the question of whether Mr. Trump has broken the law and the question of whether others have broken the law—these are different questions.  Right now we are working on the first of these questions; if you want to admit that he has done so in your honest opinion (not simply for the sake of agrument), we can move on to whether that fact is unusual among politicians (especially, whether Mrs. Clinton has also done comparable or worse law-breaking). 

1. That wasn't the basis of my disagreement with it not being solicitation but it does make it less of a big deal because nothing was exchanged. My basis was that it didn't directly contribute to the campaign therefore it doesn't apply to this.

2. Not really because depending on how the evidence against hillary was used, it would change it's perceived value and if it would be of any contribution to the campaign in a roundabout way. Also, what is considered as "other thing of value" is arguable and the law doesn't specially mention anything about the exchange of something that directly damages the compaign of an opponent rather than being a direct contribution to the campaign. 

3. Well, politicians have been breaking the spirit of this law for a long time so to me, it's silly to use it as a way to get someone who came closer to breaking the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  This should dropped just because it's not gonna fly in court and jury. It's more or less a means to damage trump regardless if it goes anywhere or not. I can undertand why democrats wouldn't let that bone go easily.

The law should be changed to better fit the times. It's built around foreign national (foreigner in your country) attempting to give a contribution or donation in exchange for a favor in the physical world. Politicians are given donations from foreigners in exchange for favors all the time but they just happen to be not on our soil when they do it because of conveniences of modern times.



Aeolus451 said:
Final-Fan said:

1.  When you agreed that "going to a meeting for the agreed-upon purpose of obtaining a thing would count as "soliciting" that thing", did you not understand that going to a meeting for the purpose of obtaining a thing is a fact that doesn't change based on whether or not you were successful in obtaining that thing? 

2.  Isn't it contradictory to (a) assert that such information would not be "money or other thing of value", yet (b) admit that the information would be devastating to Mr. Trump's political opponent?  (In other words, why wouldn't that information be of immense value to Mr. Trump, and therefore forbidden for him to receive or seek to receive from foreign nationals?)

3.  Let's keep separate the question of whether Mr. Trump has broken the law and the question of whether others have broken the law—these are different questions.  Right now we are working on the first of these questions; if you want to admit that he has done so in your honest opinion (not simply for the sake of agrument), we can move on to whether that fact is unusual among politicians (especially, whether Mrs. Clinton has also done comparable or worse law-breaking). 

1. That wasn't the basis of my disagreement with it not being solicitation but it does make it less of a big deal because nothing was exchanged. My basis was that it didn't directly contribute to the campaign therefore it doesn't apply to this.

2. Not really because depending on how the evidence against hillary was used, it would change it's perceived value and if it would be of any contribution to the campaign in a roundabout way. Also, what is considered as "other thing of value" is arguable and the law doesn't specially mention anything about the exchange of something that directly damages the compaign of an opponent rather than being a direct contribution to the campaign. 

3. Well, politicians have been breaking the spirit of this law for a long time so to me, it's silly to use it as a way to get someone who came closer to breaking the letter of the law rather than the spirit.  This should dropped just because it's not gonna fly in court and jury. It's more or less a means to damage trump regardless if it goes anywhere or not. I can undertand why democrats wouldn't let that bone go easily.

The law should be changed to better fit the times. It's built around foreign national (foreigner in your country) attempting to give a contribution or donation in exchange for a favor in the physical world. Politicians are given donations from foreigners in exchange for favors all the time but they just happen to be not on our soil when they do it because of conveniences of modern times.

1.  If the information was exclusively something to be used against a party Mr. Trump wanted to see damaged, and therefore was exclusively an indirect benefit to Mr. Trump & Donald Trump's campaign as opposed to a direct benefit, this could be seen as equivalent to performing a service, which are most certainly covered under this statute as I believe case law attests.  Additionally, by that logic securing the services of a hitman is fine because it doesn't directly benefit you, only damages another party to your indirect benefit. 

2.  Please agree or disagree to the following statements.  You may, obviously, give as much context or qualification as you like to your agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty. 
(a)  Trump would not have taken time out of his busy schedule for a meeting to obtain information that he did not value. 
(b)  The statement of the go-between, "...offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information..." indicate that he considered the information to be a thing of value
(c.)  The statement of Mr. Trump, "...if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer." indicates that he considered the information to be a thing of value
(d)  In general, information can be a thing of value, which is demonstrated by people and organizations expending resources to produce, obtain, publicize, or prevent the publicization of information, which they would not do if it was worthless. 
(e)  In specific, this would be a case of a party (Mr. Trump) valuing information for the purposes of obtaining and subsequently publicizing information "especially later in the summer". 

3.  I don't see how trying to do something illegal (but failing) would be closer to the spirit of the law than trying to do something illegal (and succeeding). 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!