Trump

[shockfan89_]

Because those are 3 separate things you are conflating as tied to funds. It is contributing to a campaign, donating to a campaign, or spending campaign funds. Otherwise donations and contributions would be redundant and serve no purpose.

Or is it contributing funds, donating funds, or spending funds to/for a campaign?

[ShockCrazy]

Or is it contributing funds, donating funds, or spending funds to/for a campaign?

That would makes no logical sense because in that situation contributing and donating are equivocally the same.

[shockfan89_]

Oh my.

Russia implemented the adoption ban as a "hey U.S., take that" response to sanctions against Russia. Any discussion of "adoption" was Russia trying to get the U.S. to ease up on its sanctions.

Adoption sounds like an innocent topic, but in this context, it was far from it. Everything suggests Russia wanted to deal with the Trump family. "Here, we will help you win, and then, you give us X in return" type of stuff.

Dirty. Really really dirty.

Would have been much easier to just overpay Bill Clinton to give a speech since everyone thought his wife was going to be elected. Oh wait, they did that too...

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I suppose that's one way to look at it. The guy has changed his story ten times in the last two weeks, and he just tweeted out the emails because the NYT was going to publish them (at least, that's what is being reported).

Yeah, so I'm not saying this guy is a shining beacon of honesty and morality. In my opinion the entire Trump family are the only people we could have sent to the White House with less integrity than the Clintons.

My point is this current administration has a pattern of doubling down on virtually all the idiotic nonsense, half-truths, or outright lies they say--and they have more of that than any president that has been in office in my lifetime. The administration is a complete joke, and the only ones laughing are the rest of the world.

When Don Jr. knew the NYT story was about to break, he released the damaging information rather than just call it "fake news", or impugn the integrity of the reporters, or any of the other inane tactics his dad has been trying. I've seen no behavior from Trump senior to make me think he knows when he's painted himself into a corner and has no way out. His son is obviously different.

That is what I mean is refreshing. I'm also well aware of the damage the administration has done to the institution of the Presidency when a guy releasing emails detailing a potentially illegal meeting is a "refreshing" change.

[shockfan89_]

That would makes no logical sense because in that situation contributing and donating are unequivocally the same.

I agree. But do you think every federal, state, and local candidate declares every piece of information they receive as a campaign contribution? That would be a hard conviction with decades and decades of prior "cases" that have not been prosecuted.

BTW, is pandering to people illegally in the country by promising them handouts or "sanctuary" in your city or a path to citizenship in exchange for their vote or votes from their family members/friends considered colluding with a foreign national?

[ShockCrazy]

I agree. But do you think every federal, state, and local candidate declares every piece of information they receive as a campaign contribution? That would be a hard conviction with decades and decades of prior "cases" that have not been prosecuted.

Yes, there probably been violations in the past if again this is viewed as a contribution. But I absolutely believe this is the first time senior officials in a campaign knowingly and deliberately participated in such a thing and admitted it. Maybe if it goes before a court they will decide it's not a contribution. But right now this lies in the grey area of a judges ruling. Maybe it will never get there, but there is a very real chance this was illegal.

[shockfan89_]

Yes, there probably been violations in the past if again this is viewed as a contribution. But I absolutely believe this is the first time senior officials in a campaign knowingly and deliberately participated in such a thing and admitted it. Maybe if it goes before a court they will decide it's not a contribution. But right now this lies in the grey area of a judges ruling. Maybe it will never get there, but there is a very real chance this was illegal.

I agree with everything you said right up to "there is a very real chance this was illegal". There is an outside possibility it was illegal. The only way it is illegal is if you believe a meeting that resulted in nothing, was in someway a contribution. And that is IF a contribution can be considered information only.

[shockfan89_]

Fun chat guys and/or gals but I have a 2pm meeting (NOT with a person claiming to be a Russian official and no, JH4P, NOT with a prostitute either. Although if it was with a prostitute I can promise we wouldn't agree to do business so therefore I can still be husband of the year). :)

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I'm curious, at what point will it no longer be worth it to defend Trump? At what point will Republicans throw up their hands? They literally did it during the campaign.

Is it after midterms? Is it once obvious evidence of an impeachable offense comes out?

[ShockCrazy]

I agree with everything you said right up to "there is a very real chance this was illegal". There is an outside possibility it was illegal. The only way it is illegal is if you believe a meeting that resulted in nothing, was in someway a contribution. And that is IF a contribution can be considered information only.

Let me reiterate IF information is a contribution IT IS ILLEGAL. Engaging in the meeting at that point regardless of what happens after is the crime full stop. The meeting was admitted to be about information, it does not matter that it was not received, the campaign willingly wanted to accept that contribution(information) from a foreign national, THAT IS A CRIME.

[shockfan89_]

Let me reiterate IF information is a contribution IT IS ILLEGAL. Engaging in the meeting at that point regardless of what happens after is the crime full stop. The meeting was admitted to be about information, it does not matter that it was not received, the campaign willingly wanted to accept that contribution(information) from a foreign national, THAT IS A CRIME.

So declaring (providing information) your city or state is a sanctuary city/state to foreign nationals illegally in the country with the hope of influencing their friends and family to vote for a certain party would be considered a crime too? Sounds a lot like colluding with foreign nationals to influence the outcome of an election...

[ShockCrazy]

So declaring (providing information) your city or state is a sanctuary city/state to foreign nationals illegally in the country with the hope of influencing their friends and family to vote for a certain party would be considered a crime too? Sounds a lot like colluding with foreign nationals to influence the outcome of an election...

Misdirect misdirect. But no, campaigning on immigration reform that would potentially help illegals is not against the law. We can make all these tenuous ties if you want but they fall down under scrutiny. Here we have actual evidence. Also here is the full law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20 Notice it mentions:
"(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election."
"(g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section."
Is opposition research of value? Yes, else why are investigators and such hired by campaigns.

[Aargh]

I struggle to believe Don, Jr.'s report that they just talked about adoptions. He doesn't have a good track record of reporting his involvement with Russia. Why would we believe him now? Trump, Sr's comment during the campaign that he encouraged Russia to keep digging up the dirt on Hillary could come back to bite him in the ass.
Trump, Jr. is trying to say, "Yes, I had the meeting, but we didn't discuss anything the meeting was set up to discuss." For the last year he's claimed the meeting never happened. Why believe him now?

The defense of Trump and Trump, Jr. reminds me of Brownback's attempts to downplay the budget problems in Kansas, "We wouldn't be having this problem if the media would just stop reporting it".

[pinstripers]

If it's a crime, let's prosecute.

[Aargh]

If it's a crime, let's prosecute.

And if it's not a crime, let's persecute.