Maybe, but I doubt the accusations hold water.
Trump Co. probably has an army of lawyers waiting for these kind of time wasting accusations from the Democratic party and libs in general.
Which accusations? The conduct is not in question, right? Jr. went to a meeting he believed to be with a Russian government lawyer promising to provide information that would help the Trump campaign.
If you mean the connection between the conduct and the law, I would agree that it’s not an airtight case. There’s a question about whether the information would satisfy the meaning of “anything of value”. And assuming it does, the law as written defines solicitation in ways that don’t map super well to receiving information or opposition research services. So there is some uncertainty there.
But if you’re either Trump’s lawyer right now, you’re absolutely reading up on campaign finance law and preparing arguments you will make in your client’s defense. It’s probably not plea deal time yet, but the facts we already know should justify a warrant to search the rest of Jr.'s emails, and there’s a good chance there’s enough to get past a grand jury (i.e. to bring formal charges) even without whatever a search could turn up.
The accusation of Dems and Libs against DTJR is “collusion”.
Collusion implies direct ties and friendship with a foreign government. There is no indication this is more than an isolated incident, that somebody (doesn’t matter who) has dirt on Clinton, during the election, of course the opposition will look into. That’s expected. If somebody offers you dirt, during an election, on the opponent then you take it.
However, there seems an imbalance here
The adage comes to mind ,’ ‘He that protests too much’.
This is tricky, and it makes for speculation.
Unless, there is another angle. Perhaps this wrangling about the collusion, a more hidden and potentially more damaging issue is covered up: That of very low level business dealings in Russia, with underworld characters connected to the government and intelligence community there
A notable correspondent pointed this out, expressing the opinion, that for the first time in history, the U.S. has a very corrupt business family in the white house, unprecedented, at a time of great problems in the world
The unprovable collusion may be the cover of a huge iceberg, which may not withstand scrutiny.
I find it interesting the thought process of those who defend 45…
They think it is some sort of conspiracy to “dethrone” 45
(an interesting choice of words by that person) but it misses several points
of interest…first of all, there is no possible legal path for the democrats to
put a democrat into office… and I find the continued conspiracy of conservatives
to be of interest… everything is some sort of plot…the hated media is plotting
with the DNC to take over the U.S… is a rather ongoing fantasy of the right…
and the right wing ongoing delusion that the left is somehow plotting to
destroy America (why is never really explained as America is our country too)
and the left keep minorities down so they will vote for the democrats…
all kinds of conspiracy theories with no basis in fact but believed with fervor
and faith by the right…which misses the point of this thread and the reason
I wrote this thread… we believe in justice and the best way to achieve justice
for people is to have a country that is a country of laws…
this concept is a liberal concept… we saw how monarchs would make
laws and rules not, with the consent of the governed but by whim
and unaccounted for by anyone…the question is really this…
how do we best achieve justice? equate god with a monarch and you see
part of my own personal objection with religion… a just god, a just monarch
is only as just as they decide they want to be as there is no checks and balances
on their decrees… for the left, justice is best served by obeying laws created
by those who must also obey them… consent of the governed…
it becomes a question of justice, not of politics…that is why this is so important…
it is not a question of politics for me, it is a question of justice and how we best
find justice… and that justice must apply to all, from president to the lowest person
in society including those who aren’t even members of our country… for justice is justice
for everyone… recall that famous painting or statue of the woman holding the scales
being blindfolded… justice must be blind to the status of the accused and hold
everyone to the same standard regardless of their position in society…
this is the basis for our continued pressing of 45…it is justice that drives
the liberal, not security… if you ever understood that, you would
understand the liberal mind… we seek justice even at our own peril…
Kropotkin
Probably true. But what if it’s not?
Consider:
buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/t … .ceV1qZ1Oy
thedailybeast.com/us-spies-w … t-you-next
You have to ask yourself why on earth Trump is allowing the Kremlin to seemingly dictate his agenda regarding Putin.
Sure, it might revolve entirely around the fact that he and the Keystone Kops he has assembled in the White House committed treason.
But try to imagine if that would really be more embarrassing to him than a tape of women pissing on him!
Sure, that actually turns some men on. But Trump the misogynist?!
I don’t think there’s any agreed definition of “collusion” being used, and that’s on both parties. It seems pretty clear that Democrats mean something different when they say “collusion” than do Republicans, and so a Democrat can say, “There was collusion”, and a Republican can say, “There was no collusion”, and both can be speaking truthfully.
To my knowledge, “collusion” has no legal meaning in this context.
EDIT: It seems like John W. Dean’s reply here is what Democrats mean (though I don’t think Dean is a Democrat):
A file for impeachment of Donald Trump has begun today by a house democrat, we need to make madame Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton president now! If you disagree with this statement that means you’re a Russian agent that needs to be visited by homeland security in a state run F.E.M.A. camp. So, if you’re not a foreign Russian agent you better agree with this post.
Not funny yet Otto, but fifth time’s the charm I’m sure.
Another law professor, this one a First Amendment scholar, replied to the law professor I cited earlier (he leans right, but to my knowledge is not a Trump supporter), and I think it’s the best defense I’ve seen so far. His argument is essentially that there is a First Amendment right to have conversations and receive information like that promised to Jr., because foreign persons on US soil have full First Amendment rights.
I think the inquiry becomes fact based in light of this argument. The First Amendment defense applies to a meeting in which Jr. is showed or given the information and no other transaction takes place. On the other hand, if they agreed that the best way to use the information was for the Russians to release it at the end of the summer to Wikileaks, that is still probably illegal. It’s one thing to simply receive information and then disseminate it (even anonymously), but I believe it’s still constitutional to prohibit arranging for another person to release information in a way that benefits the campaign.
So this argument does suggests that the facts we know are compatible with Jr.'s actions being totally legal. It does not suggest, however, that all reasonable interpretations of the evidence are constitutionally protected.
Are you M.A.D.? Make America Democrat?