Politics Donald Trump Jr just confessed to Trump campaign election fraud

Lock'em up!

 

Uh huh.

 

After all these months, the media wing of the democratic party has painted a story of people in the campaign colluding with Russia to hack and release the DNC and Clinton campaign emails.

This has nothing to do with any of that. What is described in the emails sounds like a Russian individual exaggerating things to get the meeting in the first place. What was promised had nothing to do with hacking, emails, etc., that the 17 intelligence agencies (that's a lie, but your tweets and CNN will repeat it) claim.

I'm sure people in both campaigns listened to anyone with any dirt on the opposition all along. That's how the game is played.

Until there's any reason to legitimately doubt Trump Jr's explanation, it's good enough.

It's like there's smoke, we found a barely smoking cigarette butt!

This is all you got?

How can you (or anyone), with any intellectual honesty, ignore the now famous Trump Dossier that you were so proudly producing a stream of tweets about?

That dossier is not smoke or a smoking cigarette butt, but an actual thing that was shared among Democrats and the deep state organizations. It's origin is a campaign buying opposition research from a foreign company, sourced by ... get this... Russian sources. But the Russians were out to help Trump?

Just LOL

 

Just this.

Use your brain.

 

Change the first line to "Russia, Russia, Russia" and you have a winner.

 

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley again. The text in big font is how I see it. I'm looking at the claims and the legality and even the concept of if this is a high crime or misdemeanor (which I think has to happen AFTER taking office).

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...n-don-jrs-russia-meeting-wasnt-collusion-just

In other words, does any of this constitute a clear crime or even a vague inkblot image of a crime?

No, at least not on these facts.

Richard Painter, an ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, has declared that the meeting “borders on treason.” Article III defines treason as “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Trump Jr. went to a meeting on the belief that a lawyer had evidence of criminal collusion by Clinton with a foreign power. That is a rather curious basis for a charge of treason and would make traitors of countless campaign operatives.

On CNN, viewers were told that this is the long-sought “smoking gun” on collusion. Norm Eisen, a White House ethics czar under former President Obama, reportedly has invoked the Logan Act — a law from 1799 that makes it a crime for citizens to intervene in disputes or controversies between the United States and foreign governments. It has never been used to convict a single U.S. citizen and is widely viewed as facially unconstitutional. Yet, when Eisen looks at this inkblot he reportedly sees a Logan Act case.

For Vermont Law professor Jennifer Taub, the inkblot looks like a conspiracy to defraud the United States. She believes that prosecutors could charge the participants with seeking to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 by going to a meeting to hear evidence that another party may have committed a crime … against the United States. No such evidence was offered, and no further actions are known to have occurred. There has never been a case under 18 U.S.C. 371 that even remotely resembles such a distortive claim.

One image that a lot of experts see in these stories is a possible violation of the federal law banning foreign contributions to federal campaigns — ironically the very claim that the meeting was called to discuss with regard to Hillary Clinton. The relevant law is 36 U.S.C. 510, which bars direct or indirect contributions or other things of value from a foreign national. MSNBC justice and security analyst Matthew Miller said Trump Jr. could now go to jail because “it doesn’t have to be money … it can be, potentially, accepting information. So he’s potentially confessing in his statement to committing a crime.”

Of course, the crux is “other thing of value.” Under this approach, a court would have to include information as a thing of value like money and then declare that Trump Jr. solicited the information by agreeing to go to the meeting. If that were the case, the wide array of meetings by politicians and their aides with foreign nationals would suddenly become possible criminal violations.

It is common for foreign governments to withhold or take actions to influence elections in other countries. Information is often shared through various channels during elections from lobbyists, non-government organizations, and government officials. This includes former Clinton aide Alexandra Chalupa, who allegedly worked with Ukrainian government officials and journalists to come up with dirt on Trump and Manafort.

 

It's interesting that you left out this part:

Yesterday, The New York Times added to this frenzy by reporting that “Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy.” While I remain skeptical of the basis for a crime based on “collusion,” that would clearly be a significant development in supporting allegations of a knowing coordination with the Russians.

Today, Trump Jr. released his emails on Twitter. One states, “the crown prosecutor of Russia” had 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.” Rod Goldstone, a publicist, stated, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”

That would clearly constitute at least initial communications and possible coordination between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

 

There's very good reason to doubt his story - he changed it 3 times over the weekend. Remember when it was just a meeting about adoption? Also note his outraged denials of any contact with Russians a week or two after this meeting took place.

So far it is. Bet it won't be by this time next month. But you keep pushing that rock up the hill.

barfo

 

Seems like a non-consequential meeting among hundreds of others, that he wouldn't particularly remember the details. It's not like a major foreign policy disaster where a US ambassador was killed (something one should remember vividly).

 

I agree with this 100%. Except I don't think they're interested in spending their time on a whacky conspiracy theory, feeding it even further.

 

Sure I read the emails. They had nothing to do with collusion, just hearing about some potential dirt unrelated to any hacking.

What I haven't done is seen how many emails there are overall. If these are one thread among thousands, and many others are about meetings, even potential opposition research info related ones, then it is inconsequential. I'm guessing there are MANY others.

 

How did the Trump Dossier come about?

Why the double standards?