Kushner, Manafort and Don Jr. met with a Russian lawyer with Kremlin ties during the campaign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to hear Don Sr's excuse. Given his past form, it should go something like: "Donald Trump Jr? Don't really know him. I think I met him, like, once."

Nah, I predict it will ultimately be something like this, as a tweet ... natch: "I know the special prosecutor recommended criminal charges, but I've talked to my son, and Jared and Paul Manafort, and I'm convinced that they did nothing wrong. Anything they did was all a patriotic effort to protect this great country from Crooked Hillary! Therefore, I am signing pardons for all of them, to make sure no one can even try to prosecute them unfairly."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

Which crime? Taking for money is prohibited by election laws, but what crime is it to take info?

The crime is soliciting or accepting something of value. The law is not just about actual cash.

There is no indication of solicitation. Even under the broad definition of "solicitation" propounded by the FEC. What was accepted?

I am sure there are plenty of other crimes committed elsewhere, like failing to disclose this meeting in the first place. The prohibition on private diplomacy. Etc. But hearing about proffered information? that apparently never materialized . . . .

At least one expert disagrees with your analysis:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait to hear Don Sr's excuse. Given his past form, it should go something like: "Donald Trump Jr? Don't really know him. I think I met him, like, once."

Nah, I predict it will ultimately be something like this, as a tweet ... natch: "I know the special prosecutor recommended criminal charges, but I've talked to my son, and Jared and Paul Manafort, and I'm convinced that they did nothing wrong. Anything they did was all a patriotic effort to protect this great country from Crooked Hillary! Therefore, I am signing pardons for all of them, to make sure no one can even try to prosecute them unfairly."

Petty on point, but more than 160 characters. And does not end with a Sad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone explain to me why we can't just nullify this election? And reverse everything this treasonous, illegitimate asshole did?

Yeah, yeah-not an option in the constitution. But holy hell

Because he was legitimately elected. Deal with it and stop crying in your cheerios.

Legitimately elected? Looking more and more doubtful now.

[Anonymous]

Where are the GOP statements of "this is very disturbing" OR "I find this troubling." All I hear are crickets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Yes. Because that is a crime (aka colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence an election). What, you think NBD? It's a HUGE deal. It also stops the "months of investigation and no collusion shown" narrative of Trumpkins. Collusion not just shown-- admitted in writing. Game. Set. Match.

PP you responded to and not a Trump supporter, but the ethics double standard here and what people will forgive their own candidate of choice for vs the opponent is quite rich.

A Russian lawyer with "ties" to the Russian gov soliciting Trump's son for a meeting with dirt on Hillary hardly seems like a smoking gun for the campaign systemically colluding with the Russian gov.

15 minutes after the meeting, Trump tweeted for the first time about the 30,000 emails. There is a whole timeline that digresses from there, but the pattern is pretty well established.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet Republicans will do nothing even with this. Hatch already declares this a non issue.

I sincerely believe this is the end of the United States and our Constitution. I don't see how we get out of this.

What would be beyond the ability of the Republicans to accept? Seriously, what? Are they trying to prove him right about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the GOP statements of "this is very disturbing" OR "I find this troubling." All I hear are crickets.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341460-graham-trump-jr-emails-disturbing-and-very-problematic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-another-shoe-needs-to-be-pursued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet Republicans will do nothing even with this. Hatch already declares this a non issue.

I sincerely believe this is the end of the United States and our Constitution. I don't see how we get out of this.

What would be beyond the ability of the Republicans to accept? Seriously, what? Are they trying to prove him right about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue?

would that be systemic shootings on fifth avenue, or a one off?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet Republicans will do nothing even with this. Hatch already declares this a non issue.

I sincerely believe this is the end of the United States and our Constitution. I don't see how we get out of this.

What would be beyond the ability of the Republicans to accept? Seriously, what? Are they trying to prove him right about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue?

would that be systemic shootings on fifth avenue, or a one off?

More than one. If it were only one, they would say, well, we all make mistakes, it's time to forgive and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the GOP statements of "this is very disturbing" OR "I find this troubling." All I hear are crickets.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341460-graham-trump-jr-emails-disturbing-and-very-problematic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-another-shoe-needs-to-be-pursued

Where are the GOP actual actions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the GOP statements of "this is very disturbing" OR "I find this troubling." All I hear are crickets.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341460-graham-trump-jr-emails-disturbing-and-very-problematic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-another-shoe-needs-to-be-pursued

Where are the GOP actual actions?

GOP has no political points to gain by taking action. It'll just detract them from the healthcare bill agenda that is on deck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the GOP statements of "this is very disturbing" OR "I find this troubling." All I hear are crickets.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/341460-graham-trump-jr-emails-disturbing-and-very-problematic

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-another-shoe-needs-to-be-pursued

Where are the GOP actual actions?

GOP has no political points to gain by taking action. It'll just detract them from the healthcare bill agenda that is on deck.

Politics over country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so I'm clear- the outrage here is that Trump's son met with a Russian lawyer with "government ties" who claimed to have dirt on Hillary?

Yes. Because that is a crime (aka colluding with a hostile foreign government to influence an election). What, you think NBD? It's a HUGE deal. It also stops the "months of investigation and no collusion shown" narrative of Trumpkins. Collusion not just shown-- admitted in writing. Game. Set. Match.

PP you responded to and not a Trump supporter, but the ethics double standard here and what people will forgive their own candidate of choice for vs the opponent is quite rich.

A Russian lawyer with "ties" to the Russian gov soliciting Trump's son for a meeting with dirt on Hillary hardly seems like a smoking gun for the campaign systemically colluding with the Russian gov.

15 minutes after the meeting, Trump tweeted for the first time about the 30,000 emails. There is a whole timeline that digresses from there, but the pattern is pretty well established.

And that night, June 9, Roger Stone announced: "Donald Trump will destroy Hillary Clinton next week." https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/884597356133580800

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Need a DCUM prediction: when do we get thee Trump tweet about how. Donny was right and this is HRC and Obama's fault (because emails or Benghazi or a crime having to do with Russia that has never been shown?). This afternoon? Tomorrow am's toilet time? Or does he STFU and stay off Twitter. (That last one is a joke. We all know the tweet is coming...).

So, DCUM, place your bets now on tTrump tweet time. I say 6:30 tomorrow am. Needs some time to watch Fox and Friends.

Actually, I wonder...do you think Putin is currently creating some kind of incriminating evidence against Hillary to show that there's some truth to the story?

It doesn't matter. Even if it is proven that HRC did whatever in the library with the candlestick, takinnga meeting with a foreign government Rep to get this info is still a crime. "But HRC was guilty" is not a defense. She could end up with her own legal problems if she did something wrong. But it does not get Uday (I like that, but then who is Jared?) out of this clusterf*ck.

Which crime? Taking for money is prohibited by election laws, but what crime is it to take info?

The crime is soliciting or accepting something of value. The law is not just about actual cash.

There is no indication of solicitation. Even under the broad definition of "solicitation" propounded by the FEC. What was accepted?

I am sure there are plenty of other crimes committed elsewhere, like failing to disclose this meeting in the first place. The prohibition on private diplomacy. Etc. But hearing about proffered information? that apparently never materialized . . . .

At least one expert disagrees with your analysis:

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740

Your expert got ahead of him/herself. In the article the author notes that a "solicitation" means to ask or request. Then they specifically go on to note that the information was offered. Offer and ask are not synonyms.