Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

[Theo520]

Your idea is crazy,
and you have yet to provide a source that supports this legal interpretation.

I think the first explains the second.

Calling an expressed idea crazy is not a personal insult,

 

[Ridgerunner]

What I said is true and it is illegal.

Read the statutes and regulations. Nowhere does it say that. What the regulatory commentary says is that receipt of information is not prohibited.

Information is not deemed something “of value”. It’s the “other side” of the first amendment. If the utterance of speech is protected, so is the right to hear it.

 

[Theo520]

Wow, double down on crazy. Well, I hope you don’t get suspended.

Here’s an article about it at the time. I choose it because it links to the relevant statute.

Did Donald Trump Jr. Break The Law? Question Hangs Over Washington : NPR

There are many legal opinions out there - most of which follow party lines. You can read up on it when you have time.

I think you provided the wrong link. The only legal argument it provided was VERY weak, it said foreign nationals aren’t protected by the 1st. Your article did not reference any relevant statutes.

Bauer said that Trump Jr.'s email exchange with Goldstone confirms that the Trump campaign was actively trying to get help from Russians. And he notes that foreign nationals don’t get First Amendment free-speech rights in U.S. elections, so the law’s prohibitions on such help are very strict.

Still waiting for your supporting citation. I will then acknowledge your idea is not crazy, that you were right and I was wrong.

 

[Theo520]

Oh, goodness. Please take the time to look at it carefully. I posted it a minute ago.

The ‘federal law’ has a hyperlink (that’s why it is blue) that takes you to the law in question. Then you can go ahead and do your own search on opinion why Trump Jr did or did not break that law. You’re big on reading comprehension, so I figure you’re big on doing a little research, too.

ROFL, perhaps you should follow that link, it included further links to their definitions.

The law is specific to financial disbursements and donations from foreign nationals, it’s about MONEY.

Trump didn’t receive anything, let alone anything of value for free or a reduced cost.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be foolish for them to pursue that route IMO. So far no one has disproved anything on that dossier. If you can’t accept the results, don’t do the investigations.

 

[ProVobis]

What made it illegal was that Russia stole those emails. The only question remains is whether Trump knew about them before they were released. That would indicate a coverup of a crime by an adversary country to damage your political opponent.

 

[Theo520]

What made it illegal was that Russia stole those emails. The only question remains is whether Trump knew about them before they were released. That would indicate a coverup of a crime by an adversary country to damage your political opponent.

The DNC emails were hacked during the primary and there has been no connection shown with Trump. There isn’t even definitive evidence the wikileaks dump came from the Russian Govt. What we know is that Russian computers probed the DNC network, since it was monitored as it was happening by their security team. We don’t know how many other times and other entities also probed the network. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume Russia was the whistle blower on the DNC.

There is also nothing illegal about hearing wikileaks is going to make an announcement, before they actually make the announcement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you provided the wrong link. The only legal argument it provided was VERY weak, it said foreign nationals aren’t protected by the 1st. Your article did not reference any relevant statutes.

A number of the punitive provisions apply to punishment OF foreign nationals. one needs to keep that in mind when reading the statutes and regs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What we know is that Russian computers probed the DNC network, since it was monitored as it was happening by their security team

I don’t think we even know that. The only entity that has examined the DNC computer was Crowdstrike, a private company hired by the DNC. The FBI twice asked to have its experts examine the computer, but was denied access by the DNC.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes but we’re not talking criminal or civil suits here. You and RR are so fixated on that in defense of Trump. This is a mandated investigation with impeachment implications. I believe the focus is on high crimes and misdemeanors, however they’re defined. In Nixon’s case it was the coverup.

 

[Theo520]

Yes but we’re not talking criminal or civil suits here. You and RR are so fixated on that in defense of Trump. This is a mandated investigation with impeachment implications. I believe the focus is on high crimes and misdemeanors, however they’re defined. In Nixon’s case it was the coverup.

What are you talking about? The obama admin was fully aware of the cyber attack and took the appropropriate investigative actions at that time, didn’t they?

Trying to pin this as a Trump coverup now is ludicrous to say the least. Any investigation on the DNC hack should have been completed well before Trump was even elected to office.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Please Mr. President…now fire Mueller…so the last nail is in your administration’s political cofiin and we can wake up from this nightmare!

The nightmare isn’t President Trump.
The nightmare has been the politics out to destroy a duly elected president!
The lengths they have gone to.
I would like to wake up from this nightmare too and let the president do his job as he was elected to do and for the whiners to crawl quietly back from
where they came from!

 

[Ridgerunner]

The nightmare isn’t President Trump.

The nightmare has been the politics out to destroy a duly elected president!

The lengths they have gone to.

I would like to wake up from this nightmare too and let the president do his job as he was elected to do and for the whiners to crawl quietly back from

where they came from!

It won’t happen 7. The progressives can’t stand it that their program was interrupted for a time with Trump, so they’re bound and determined to remove him from office and prevent him from accomplishing anything in the meantime.

Of course, the Dem/progressives don’t actually have an agenda other than protection of abortion-on-demand. But those who defend abortion are absolute about it, so I think we’ll just see this continue as long as Trump is in office and doesn’t promote giving a billion dollars to Planned Parenthood.

There are others, of course, who oppose Trump, like the “never Trumpers” among conservatives who oppose him because he’s not a classic conservative in their mold.

 

[Theo520]

No, part (b) says

“(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, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.”

So, Trump Jr attempted to get something of value from a foreign national in connection to this election and, to make it worse, a foreign national giving information from a foreign government.

Read the linked definitions, there is no indication that gossip is considered ‘a thing of value’ by the statute. They are referring to free hotel rooms, etc etc.

It reeks of desperation to indicate otherwise. No crime was committed, especially since no information was even exchanged.

 

[Hereiam]

The nightmare has been the politics out to destroy a duly elected president!

The lengths they have gone to.

Really? “Politics out to destroy a duly elected president”?

How about a duly elected president hell bent on destroying his own presidency?

"Politics" did not enter into a cover up for an illicit sexual relationship with a porn star, Hed did.

"Politics" has not ignored Russian meddling in American elections, He did.

"Politics" has not fired key administration members for not being loyal to him before being loyal to the Constitution, He did.

"Politics" has not allowed his son-in-law to have full access to top secret information without an adequate clearance, He has.

"Politics" did not claim that because he was rich he could do “anything he wanted”, including “grabbing them by the pu&%y”, He did.

"Politics" did not claim he had no need to ask God for forgiveness, or that the Eucharist is little more than “my little cracker and wine”, He did.

The list goes on and on…maybe others will want to add to it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, Trump Jr attempted to get something of value from a foreign national in connection to this election and, to make it worse, a foreign national giving information from a foreign government.

I have given you two sources showing that information is not regarded as “something of value” under the FEC regulations.

 

[Theo520]

Remember, he wasn’t promised gossip - he was promised dirt delivered from the Russian government. Most certainly something of value and most certainly illegal.

Gossip is same as dirt, the statute doesn’t indicate scuttlebut is covered. If it was covered, then you should be able to find a precedent case, right? All such cases are about regular goods and services, not salacious dirt on your opponent.

You’ve 100% failed to support your claim that his meeting to get competitive info was illegal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Remember, he wasn’t promised gossip - he was promised dirt delivered from the Russian government. Most certainly something of value and most certainly illegal.

Just wrong.

 

[HCTC]

Saturday Night Live addressed the firings of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, calling up the hilarious Kate McKinnon to reprise her Keebler-seque impression of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Watch 'SNL' Recap Turmoil at White House in Cold Open Sketch

'Saturday Night Live' tackled the "turmoil" in the White House with a cold open that touched on the firings of Andrew McCabe and Rex Tillerson.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Theo520]

I don’t really have to convince you or Ridgerunner, nor do I think I could as you two likely wouldn’t look at it in an unbiased way. It is the law. Trump, Jr. broke it.

Yet you can’t cite a supporting law, that is what’s sad.

Trump JR never received anything of value since no information was ever provided.

Even if you are right about dirt, that it is substantive and included in the statutes, you would have to show he received the ‘dirt’ but didn’t pay market value for the information he didn’t receive.

Desperate times call for desperate tactics by liberals, I guess.

Just provide us with one precedent where ‘dirt’ is deemed a thing of value, that will go a long way in proving your argument.