Silly leftists
Jonathan Turley: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
Out: "NO COLLUSION!" In: "SOME COLLUSION!"
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
Jonathan Turley: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
This should be obvious to any thinking person on the left or right.
Silly leftists
Jonathan Turley: If Trump meeting is illegal, then Clinton dossier is criminal too
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
Last edited:
This is law professor Turley's response to the foreign trolls who think what Hillary did was different..
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
...
The point is that only amateurs would take a meeting after a cryptic email from a music promoter about having Russian government evidence. They should have informed the FBI and used lawyers as surrogates. They should have done many things other than assemble the Trump triumvirate and walk blindly into that meeting. If stupidity were a crime, Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner would serve life sentences for doing so. However, crimes are defined by acts and levels of intent. More importantly, courts narrowly construe such definitions to protect the public from ambiguous rules that prosecutors can twist to indict anyone at any time.
Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.
Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
If the Russians had evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her campaign or her family foundation, the Trump campaign had every reason to want to know about it. That is precisely what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump. Indeed, under this interpretation of federal election laws, Clinton and her surrogates would be equally guilty in using a former foreign spy to gather information on Trump from foreign sources, including Russians.
Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.
...
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...-illegal-then-clinton-dossier-is-criminal-too
...
The point is that only amateurs would take a meeting after a cryptic email from a music promoter about having Russian government evidence. They should have informed the FBI and used lawyers as surrogates. They should have done many things other than assemble the Trump triumvirate and walk blindly into that meeting. If stupidity were a crime, Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner would serve life sentences for doing so. However, crimes are defined by acts and levels of intent. More importantly, courts narrowly construe such definitions to protect the public from ambiguous rules that prosecutors can twist to indict anyone at any time.
Take the crime being proclaimed as “open and shut.” Before Camerota came to this conclusion, the CNN anchors discussed federal election laws that make it a “crime for any person to solicit, accept, or receive, anything of value from a foreign person or U.S. political campaign for the purpose of influencing any elections for federal office.” Thus, if Trump Jr. was willing to review evidence of criminal conduct by Clinton, it must be a type of foreign campaign contribution and, therefore, a federal crime.
Such logic is so inescapable that Camerota responded, “I mean, what more really is there to talk about after that one?” The answer is “a lot more.” The Russians setting up the meeting said their government had evidence of criminal conduct connected to the Clinton Foundation soliciting illegal donations. According to witnesses, Trump Jr. asked for the promised evidence but Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya said she did not have it and only wanted to talk about Magnitsky Act limitations on Russian adoptions. The meeting ended shortly thereafter.
If the Russians had evidence of criminal conduct by Hillary Clinton, her campaign or her family foundation, the Trump campaign had every reason to want to know about it. That is precisely what the Clinton campaign spent millions to do, talking to Russians and other foreigners investigating Trump. Indeed, under this interpretation of federal election laws, Clinton and her surrogates would be equally guilty in using a former foreign spy to gather information on Trump from foreign sources, including Russians.
Consider the implications of what the critics are suggesting. It would mean treating information as a form of political contribution as no different from money, for purposes of a criminal charge, even information about criminal acts by an election candidate. That would mean administrations could prosecute political opponents for merely attending meetings with foreign individuals to discuss the criminal conduct of a sitting American president. Democratic politicians could be charged if they reviewed evidence of alleged bribes or quid pro quos by Trump.
...