Out: "NO COLLUSION!" In: "SOME COLLUSION!"
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
I'm sure Captain Oblivious and the rest of the crew will continue to post there is no evidence of collusion.
Meeting with Russians to get information on Clinton....and that is totally legal? haha
Meeting Russians for dirt on Clinton? It may be immoral but it's not illegal
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/opinions/trump-jr-russia-meeting-not-illegal-callan/index.html
When did assembling analysis, information and opinions on opponents become illegal?
Would love for one of the lefties to explain why it is illegal for Trump Jr. to do exactly what Hillary did., and btw, this is not even new news, They already admitted that the Russian lawyer had offered dirt on Hillary. a Long time ago, once again the media is hyperventilating just for the sake of hyperventilating.
Article dated July 2017, once again the mainstream media is full of shit, we already knew that Trump Jr. went to the meeting expecting to get dirt on Clinton, but he didnt get any, the story hasnt changed.
Donald Trump has defended his son in public over his meeting with a Russian lawyer last year, telling a press conference in Paris “most people would have taken that meeting” and ignoring questions about whether offers of political assistance from potential agents of foreign governments should be reported to the FBI.
Pre-empting the New York Times, which first reported the meeting, Trump Jr this week released emails in which he appeared eager to accept information from the Russian government that could have damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/13/donald-trump-response-to-trump-jr-russia-meeting
Donald Trump has defended his son in public over his meeting with a Russian lawyer last year, telling a press conference in Paris “most people would have taken that meeting” and ignoring questions about whether offers of political assistance from potential agents of foreign governments should be reported to the FBI.
Pre-empting the New York Times, which first reported the meeting, Trump Jr this week released emails in which he appeared eager to accept information from the Russian government that could have damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/13/donald-trump-response-to-trump-jr-russia-meeting
Nathaniel Persily at Stanford University Law School said one relevant statute is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
"A foreign national spending money to influence a federal election can be a crime," Persily said. "And if a U.S. citizen coordinates, conspires or assists in that spending, then it could be a crime."
Persily pointed to a 2011 U.S. District Court ruling based on the 2002 law. The judges said that the law bans foreign nationals "from making expenditures to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate."
Another election law specialist, John Coates at Harvard University Law School, said if Russians aimed to shape the outcome of the presidential election, that would meet the definition of an expenditure.
"The related funds could also be viewed as an illegal contribution to any candidate who coordinates (colludes) with the foreign speaker," Coates said.
To be sure, no one is saying that coordination took place. What’s in doubt is whether the word "collusion" is as pivotal as Jarrett makes it out to be.
Coates said discussions between a campaign and a foreigner could violate the law against fraud.
"Under that statute, it is a federal crime to conspire with anyone, including a foreign government, to ‘deprive another of the intangible right of honest services,’ " Coates said. "That would include fixing a fraudulent election, in my view, within the plain meaning of the statute."
Josh Douglas at the University of Kentucky Law School offered two other possible relevant statutes.
"Collusion in a federal election with a foreign entity could potentially fall under other crimes, such as against public corruption," Douglas said. "There's also a general anti-coercion federal election law."
In sum, legal experts mentioned four criminal laws that might have been broken. The key is not whether those statutes use the word collusion, but whether the activities of the Russians and Trump associates went beyond permissible acts.
Our ruling
Jarrett said that "you can collude all you want with a foreign government in an election," because there’s no law that says collusion is a crime.
Three prominent election law scholars said there are at least four laws that would prohibit the sort of activities under investigation, whether those laws mention collusion or not. Jarrett’s focus on a single word fails to reflect the reach of the criminal code.
Apples and oranges. Hillary used domestic funds to hire a foreigner. Trump used foreign funds to obtain dirt obtained through illegal means (if talking about hacked Intel).