Personally I think that they haven't been able to find anything on collusion. Which is why all that we're hearing about is "obstruction" and "campaign finance violations". If there really was collusion something about it would have been leaked already. As it is everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors.
The campaign finance violation is debatable and I don't think that any congress critter wants to base an impeachment case off of it as ignoring it would allow them to continue doing the same. And anyone that thinks that no congress critter does this is naive to say the least. Everyone has skeletons in their closets and everyone wants to keep them in the closet. This is especially true of anyone in power. This is also why fines are often levied instead of jail/prison.
As for obstruction, if there is no collusion, how can there be obstruction? There has to be something "there" in order for someone to obstruct that something.
But the question is:
What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?
Collusion has already been established with the Trump Tower meeting. Now the question of conspiracy resulting from that collusion or as part that collusion is being established. The "there" is already there.
We've been through this haymarket, there was no crime committed, before, during or because of the meeting.
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)
Codification
Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2, The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
Prior Provisions
A prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title.
Another prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2, The Congress, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–187.
Amendments
2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".
Effective Date of 2002 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–155 effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of Pub. L. 107–155, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title.
As far as the public is concerned and Trump's die hard supports aside, it goes to show how far Trump will go in advantage for himself. The whole thing backs up the idea that Trump is really in this for himself and what he can capitalize on, and puts into question just about everything he claims he is doing for this nation.
In all fairness those in power engage people all over the world all the time. The Clintons are a prime example, arguably so is the Bush family. None of it is ideal, but the difference is Trump seems to make a habit out of harming just about anyone to get to an ends. The means in this case was Cohen (and probably others) who in some regard helped Trump get elected by doing all they could to hide things that would impact public opinion. Even if those actions were not legal.
Collusion has already been established with the Trump Tower meeting. Now the question of conspiracy resulting from that collusion or as part that collusion is being established. The "there" is already there.
Willful denial of proven reality is not a rational argument.
Here is the law
Now prove that any of that happened. Do you know what was said at the meeting? What was promised? What was offered? Was any of that kept and done? What has Mueller said on it? Why is Mueller or anyone on his team talking about campaign finance violations and not collusion/conspiracy?
Like I said, "everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors."
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
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.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Best,
Don
The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.
Willful denial of proven reality is not a rational argument.
Here is the law
The email exchange seeing up the meeting is enough all by itself to provide evidence the law was broken. An illegal offer from a foreign source was offered and accepted by the Trump campaign. The law was broken.
Here is the offer
Here is the acceptance
Those components satisfy the language in the law.
Meetings aren't illegal haymarket.
You've posted the law ad nauseum, nothing was received haymarket and the Trump Campaign did not solicit, the Ruskies did.
No, its not enough. For all you know rain was talked about.
The law was broken because foreign assistance was offered and accepted and the email chain establishes that fact.
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
The prosecutors aren't that happy with him!
Cohen - according to prosecutors - "did not fully cooperate."
I guess that means they didn't hear what they wanna hear from him.
But the question is:
What's keeping him from fully cooperating? He's already burned his bridges with Trump - so why didn't he fully cooperate?
Could it be.....he has nothing more to give?
If he's supposed to be making a plea bargain to avoid any prison sentence or at least, to minimize it - why would he not lay it all out BEFORE any conviction and sentencing is done........ if he's got something prosecutors are dying to know?
Cohen surely knows what the prosecutors want to know, and who they really wanna get.
They want to hear about collusion!
That the prosecutors are complaining, and now accusing him of not fully cooperating, beats the purpose of the plea deal! Why make the prosecutors unhappy and angry with you?
I think, he's given everything. This well is now dry. :lol:
Personally I think that they haven't been able to find anything on collusion. Which is why all that we're hearing about is "obstruction" and "campaign finance violations". If there really was collusion something about it would have been leaked already. As it is everyone is just speculating and making assumptions based on thin tidbits of info from rumors.
The campaign finance violation is debatable and I don't think that any congress critter wants to base an impeachment case off of it as ignoring it would allow them to continue doing the same. And anyone that thinks that no congress critter does this is naive to say the least. Everyone has skeletons in their closets and everyone wants to keep them in the closet. This is especially true of anyone in power. This is also why fines are often levied instead of jail/prison.
As for obstruction, if there is no collusion, how can there be obstruction? There has to be something "there" in order for someone to obstruct that something.
The law does not say anything has to be actually acted upon. The offer and the acceptance is enough to violate the law.
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) "Foreign national" defined
As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
Again, you don't know what was discussed. You have no clue if assistance was offered/accepted. You can repeat the law as much as you want. Simply setting up a meeting is not offering assistance or accepting it. And without knowing if assistance was offered/accepted then the law is worthless.
But it does haymarket,
*(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation*
There was nothing solicited, accepted or received by the Trump Campaign.
Why did you cut off half the sentence which went on to say "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."?
That language covers an implied promise which was present in the offer made in the emails.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?