“ That is it? That is the best you can come up with?”
I don’t need to “come up” with anything, he posted the emails, it’s all right there. And nothing I said in that statement is wrong.
“ Pure emotion based reply.”
Lol. And what emotion is it purely based on? The only “emotion” I’ve felt is I think it’s kinda funny. Like I said already, if you think this is worth getting emotional over, that’s all you. It’s takes all kinds to make the world go round.
“ So how do you come up with “very great value”? what is the standard you are using to establish that what the person was attempting to discuss with JR was of great value?”
Opposition research, for political campaigns, as well as in business is valuable. Since you don’t know there happens to be a whole industry that provides those services, for political and business purposes. The research a foreign government could supply would be of very great value since they have resources that the companies that provide this service don’t have. If that type of information didn’t have value, it wouldn’t be a multi million dollar industry to provide it. Just cause it has no value in your opinion doesn’t mean it has no value, especially since there is an entire industry built around selling that type of information. This is not based on fact, just your opinion, and since the industry exist for this, makes this dishonest on your part.
“ I read all the emails and there is nothing specific mentioned in any of them to establish “worth” on so why are you making an assumption as to it’s value to then assume a crime occurred?”
If you did read them, then you would have had to read “The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump — helped along by Aras and Emin.” That is very valuable information in the opposition research industry. The final value would be determined by what exactly the information was, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that information, that is valuable to an entire industry built around that type of information, was offered. Just cause it has no worth or value in your opinion doesn’t mean it has no worth or value, since there is an entire industry built around selling that type of information. This is a distortion of what the emails said mixed with your opinion that this type of information has no value or worth. That makes this a dishonest distortion of what was written.
“ You are also severely misunderstanding solicitation. Jr never asked for anything, he was responding to what some other person was offering without his looking for it from that person. So based on the law, there was no solicitation. He agreed to a meeting, if you actually read the emails you would see he tried many times to only have a phone conversation so his intent was to never meet with anyone.”
Huh, I am severely misunderstanding solicitation you say, cause he only responded to what was offered, and had not sought it out. Well, the definition of solicitation in US law is is “requesting, encouraging or demanding someone to engage in criminal conduct, with the intent to facilitate or contribute to the commission of that crime.” Let’s see, he didn’t request, and he didn’t demand, but he sure as hell encouraged it by agreeing to the meeting, setting the meeting up, and not only that, he “ love it especially later in the summer”. The emails show he wanted to talk to emin first, they set up a timeframe to call, and the next day “Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of the meeting — and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?”. So he was aware of the meeting, which meant he did talk to Emin the day before, cause his only reply was “How about 3 at our offices? Thanks rob appreciate you helping set it up.” At no point here did he try to make it a phone call meeting with the “Russian government attorney”. He just scheduled it for his office for in person. The emails do not show that he only wanted to have a phone conversation, only that he wanted to talk to Emin first before setting up a meeting. If your opinion of what constitutes solicitation under the law was true, then there are a whole lot of people who have been convicted of solicitation illegally. Start with all the people convicted of soliciting prostitution for example. They were offered sex for money, they accepted. They are still convicted for solicitation. Talk about dishonesty and distortion on your part.
“ But he did meet and I agree it certainly looks bad considering ho-w the radical left always blows every tiny thing up bigger than it really is and JR himself has admitted if he had to do it again he would not have met with the person but again, foolishness and a lack of political appearances is not a crime. Nothing he did was illegal.”
He wanted the info, and he did meet up. And you bet that sure as hell looks bad. There ain’t know way for this to look good, cause it ain’t ever good for a federal campaign or politician to be happy with accepting help and support from a foreign government. Whether he got it or not don’t really matter for this point, cause he was willing and happy to get it if he could. Since he did by legal definition solicit this, and a person is guilty of solicitation even if their request is not accepted, or the subsequent crime simply never happens, you can’t state he did nothing illegal. At this point with whats known, like I said is only worth a slap on the wrist and a fine. Trivial, but still illegal. Just like driving a few miles over the speed limit will get you a fine, cause it might be trivial, but its still illegal. For him to be innocent in this, he would have had to canceled the meeting that was set up to get information from an illegal source, and to have reported it. He didn’t do that, and being a fool ain’t a defense for breaking the law. Excusing this cause of “political appearances”, or because he was a fool doesn’t change anything, it is just you trying to distort the situation.
“ At the end of the day I am an American, and as an American we all believe in the basic foundational belief that we are innocent until “proven” guilty. Unfortunately the radical left has been proclaiming Trump and his circle guilty for thousands of things all for emotional reasons. This is exactly the same. “IF” some actual proof is shown I will be the first person to take them to task, but so far there is nothing, not 1 shred of actual evidence of any law being broken, certainly not in this example where yo-u had to try and apply a dishonest “very great value” to something you have never even seen.”
Lol. A foundational belief of America is innocent until proven guilty. I’ve read many of your comments this morning, and you don’t apply that belief if the person is a “democrat”, or someone you label part of “radical left”, “extremist left”, or “liberal”. It is also a foundational belief that if a person breaks the law, they will face the consequences for that action. Not be excused without penalty cause they did a foolish action. There are many laws with penalties for foolish actions. It’s also worth pointing out that most Americans don’t support their politicians or their campaigns working with, or attempting to work with foreign governments to get elected. At that point if they worked that way where would their loyalty lie? To the US and the American people, or the foreign government that aided them? Given how all the conservatives, and even you had howled that Hillary would be bought off and working for her foundation donors, you don’t to try white wash that now. The liberals that defended that type of buy off and are howling now are just as hypocritical as you’re being. The “radical left”, or why they do anything ain’t got anything to do with me. It’s just another cute little catchphrase of yours, like “emotional”. You somehow got this notion in your head that if you label something “emotional”, or claim the person/source is “radical/extremist/left” that this somehow magically discredits their point or the information and it all goes *poof* and the only thing left is your opinions. Here’s a free life lesson for you, Illusions are great for kids parties and for stage magicians, they serve no purpose in conversations or out in the real world. This has no more meaning or merit than porky pigs “Th-Th-The, Th-Th-The, Th-Th… That’s all, folks”. !I don’t have to see what was offered to know that there is a whole industry making millions off of information of the type offered, and that information from government sources is highly valuable and prized in those industries. So stating its of “very great value” ain’t dishonest. The dishonesty is your defense, which is curious. What jr did legally in the campaign world is the equivalent of driving 65 in a 60 mph zone. You get a fine and move on from that part. It would be a quick investigation, and if that’s all he as he claims he did it ends there with the minor fine. The only reason fight so hard against even that, would be concern and fear that the quick investigation would open the curtain on something much worse. It is doubtful you’d be there to take anyone you support to task, since you spend all your time trying to distort and white wash what happens or what is said, even here when the actual legal penalty for what is know is so minor.
“The law you quote is concerning donations to campaigns, there was no donation and no exchange of anything of value, so based on the law you quote, no there was no violation of that law.”
That’s a large distortion, and very dishonest of you. It stated that the exchange does not have to take place for it to be broken. It defined a donation as “ money or other thing of value”, and it also stated “to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election” was a violation. Opposition information is a “thing of value”, which is why there is a multi million dollar industry built on that. The offer came from a foreign national promising that oppositional information which has value would be given to the campaign by another foreign national. There ain’t no way without knowingly lying to make the statement you just did. Why are you so afraid of the breaking of this law? From what is known it is at this point a minor infraction and worth nothing more than a fine. Methinks you doth protest too much.
“ You making the comparison to looking to buy drugs is also childish to be honest, drugs are illegal, words are not. JR went to talk, just talking to anyone is not illegal no matter who they are, we know this because Democrats have met with Russian agents as well and even Nancy Pelosi was busted telling lies about never meeting with Russians when pictures were produced to prove she was a liar.”
Huh, words are not illegal. Well that would depend on the words, otherwise there wouldn’t be people who’ve been convicted of soliciting sex, drugs, making threats etc. All of those are just words too my dishonest friend. Jr went to talk, to talk about the information he thought he was getting in that meeting from a source he couldn’t legally accept it from. That’s the problem you just can’t accept. What the hell do the dems have to do with that meeting? Nothing. This is all on Jr, Kushner and Manafort. You want to make comparisons, than actually make one. Apples to apples, not apples to coconuts as your trying to spin out. This is your comparison and your attempted deflection, so name these democrats whose campaigns accepted assistance, or tried to get assistance from foreign governments directly from a foreign national. Since you couldn’t, you instead posted this distorted analogy.
“ This is all more smoke, lots and lots of smoke, but no substance. Give me some substance, let’s step away from all this emotion based allegations and dishonesty and admit that as of today, there is not 1 speck of actual evidence against Trump or anyone in his circle of collusion with Russia to steal the election.”
Fun fact, if there's smoke, that means there's something burning. For someone who peddles his own opinion as “fact”, and distorts everything else this is ripe. Honesty is always good, let’s see if you can do that.
- As of Today there is not any publically known evidence that shows Trump or his inner circle has colluded with the Russian Government. (Until the investigation is closed no one can claim honestly that there is “not 1 speck of actual evidence”.)
- As of today it is a known fact that son Donald Trump Jr, presidential advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign manager Paul Manafort were willing to attend a meeting with a foreign national, set up by a foreign national, in an attempt to obtain information of value from a non legal source, that was to their knowledge at the time an attempt of support from the Russian Government.
- As of today it is a known fact that son Donald Trump Jr, presidential advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former campaign manager Paul Manafort were willing to accept aid and support and hence collude with the Russian Government for the election of Donald Trump.
Whether they received anything or not doesn’t change any of this, they were WILLING to collude. Something you’ve been trying really really hard to avoid dealing with. If you’re honest, and not being emotional you will be able to agree with all 3 of those. If you’re honest, and not being emotional you’ll name all the democrats whose campaigns have colluded with russia, or any foreign government for that matter since you claim it’s a valid comparison. If you’re honest and not being emotional you’ll be able to deal with the simple matter that Jr screwed up, and should get his wrist slapped and the simple fine for his foolishness, assuming given the known information that’s all he did. If you ain’t honest, and are being emotional and just trying to distort and dishonestly deflect and avoid, then you’ll avoid this last paragraph, and this conversation will be over and only the last part of this paragraph will be replied back. You have a nice day.