Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe fired

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the meeting involved an illegal act on either side, then the meeting was illegal. But so far they are claiming ignorance of that fact. But alas, we have Manafort who had experience with Russian affairs prior to that meeting so I doubt if he attended to resolve the bogus adoption issue. They were down in the polls and were desperate to get dirt on Hillary no matter what it was. If it were public information, they wouldn’t have bothered with such a risky venture.
 
Last edited:
jagged said:
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.
Click to expand...
It really isn’t the law, and I demonstrated it. If you just want to believe it, nobody can change that.
 
ProVobis said:
If the meeting involved an illegal act on either side, then the meeting was illegal. But so far they are claiming ignorance of that fact. But alas, we have Manafort who had experience with Russian affairs prior to that meeting so I doubt if he attended to resolve the bogus adoption issue. They were down in the polls and were desperate to get dirt on Hillary. If it were public information, they wouldn’t have bothered with such a risky venture.
Click to expand...
Most candidates go on a world tour to meet and talk with foreign governments.

I’m 100% confident that information is exchanged in these meetings, some of it must be ‘of value’ yet it has never been even suggested it’s a crime to have these trips.
 
ProVobis said:
If the meeting involved an illegal act on either side, then the meeting was illegal
Click to expand...
Not true. One party could have an illegal purpose and the other not. As to the first, there would be an illegal act, as to the second, there wouldn’t be.
 
jagged said:
Opposition research is paid for. It has value.
Click to expand...
In Trump’s case, it was not paid for by the Trump organization, In Hillary’s case, it was paid for by the DNC and Hillary’s campaign.

Once more:
Bloomberg Industry Group!
The FEC analysis cites a 2012 federal district court decision, which said the ban on foreign money in U.S. elections “does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues. It restrains them only from a certain form of expressive activity closely tied to the voting process—providing money for a candidate or political party or spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.”
 
jagged said:
Market value of dirt. Well, I guess we could see what Clinton paid for opposition research to find a value.
Click to expand...
If anything, you are making the argument that Hillary broke the law since she actually received ‘dirt’ from a KGB source.
 
jagged said:
Hmm, spending money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate. Rubles are money, right?
Click to expand...
But not spent by Trump’s campaign. The only money known to have been spent on foreign information was the DNC’s and Hillary’s.
 
Here are some more sources. Even liberal Newsweek admits there was no law broken in the meeting with Veselnitskaya. They thought it was bad politics, but not illegal.


www.law.cornell.edu

11 CFR § 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

www.newsweek.com

Why Donald Jr.'s Russia Meeting May Not Be Illegal

Denying the chance to interview foreign nationals would be detrimental to the First Amendment.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
 
jagged said:
So, the Russian government spent rubles, which is money in order to expressly advocate for or against the election of a candidate.
Click to expand...
I don’t think we know that the Russian government did. But if it did, it was the one who violated the statute and regs, not the Trump organization. Read those things over more carefully. You will see that some offenses are committed by the foreigner alone. Some are committed by the campaigns alone. Some can be committed by both.

And we absolutely don’t know the Russian purpose in spending any money on the “dossier” information if, indeed, it did.
 
jagged said:
So, a main stream media source puts out an opinion article that you agree with and that makes it legal?
Click to expand...
Far from it. But when even the hard left admits no crime was committed by someone it hates with a passion and accuses of all kinds of other things, you just have to let it go and find some other crime to accuse the Trumps of.
 
jagged said:
I do think we know that Trump Jr took the meeting because he thought the person coming had information from the Russian government. So, he was willing to receive an illegal contribution to his father’s campaign. Against the law. Period.
Click to expand...
He took the meeting because he thought they had info on Hillary, he could care less about the source of the dirt, which he never actually received (THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION)
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) announced Saturday afternoon that he has offered McCabe a job to work on election security in his office, “so that he can reach the needed length of service” to retire.
Click to expand...
No surprise. I don’t know anything about Pocan, but it might be mildly embarrassing later if McCabe is charged with a crime.
 
You really need to get real!!!

And when did Presbyterians begin receiving the Eucharist as Catholics understand the Eucharist?!
 
And this was something that was suspected to happen. No surprise here.
 
It’s like that old George Carlin line, if you plan to go to 35th street to commit a mortal sin, save your carfare, you did it, man!
 
jagged said:
Interesting. So, if you meet with a hitman to have your wife killed and it turns out it was a policeman, then no charges will be filed against you.
Click to expand...
Breathtakingly inept comparison. Having your wife killed is illegal. Obtaining information from Russians is not.
 
ProVobis said:
It’s like that old George Carlin line, if you plan to go to 35th street to commit a mortal sin, save your carfare, you did it, man!
Click to expand...
Just a bit off. To use the Carlin line, if you plan to go to 35th street to do something that isn’t wrong to do, it doesn’t matter whether you went or just intended to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top