Posted on 07/12/2017 1:38:12 PM PDT by Cubs Fan
Which of the follwing "collusions", if any, would be illegal?
1. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, but no information changes hands. legal or illegal?
2. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, but asks for no compensation. Legal or illegal?
3. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, receives financial compensation. Legal or illegal?
4. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, but gets no compensation. Legal or Illegal?
5. a candidate meets with a foreign agent to get dirt on their opponent, foreign agent gives info, which was illegally obtained, gets financially compensated. Legal or illegal?
This is false. Even if DJT Jr. knew the info was illegally obtained, he could legally receive and disseminate the information. See Bartnicki v. Vopper. In order for DJT Jr. to be criminally culpable, he'd have to enter into a conspiracy to illegally obtain the information in the first place.
I’ll need a retainer first.
That argument could be made, but then we don’t know if number two would be illegal or not, due to the circumstances. Possibly yes, possibly no.
With regard to information, I have a very hard time thinking a prosecutor would bother with the case for number one.
He's not yet a civil officer, but I think original intent could construe that once he became on officer, the bribery by him as a candidate would be grounds for impeachment. Of course it wouldn't matter his status if he committed treason. The Constitution calls treason a crime regardless of his status.
Show me a 30 second clip (of Hillary on election night) and I’ll pay in advance.
I was just citing the law to answer the hypo. I have no idea how it applies to DJT Jr.
Actually, I think the Lying Left has succeeded in once again distracting the Right from the Lying Left’s mountain range of crimes with another dubious, frivolous charge.
I pay no attention to such stupidity coming from the Lying Left.
You listed the bribery argument as 3.
It is wring because you cannot just wildly hilly change the wording of laws....
I was just citing the law to answer the hypo. I have no idea how it applies to DJT Jr.
Actually, I think the Lying Left has succeeded in once again distracting the Right from the Lying Left’s mountain range of crimes with another dubious, frivolous charge.
I pay no attention to such stupidity coming from the Lying Left.
What the freak are you talking about?
Copy and paste what I actually wrote and your objection to it and try to fix your spelling, because I have no idea what you’re talking about.
See your post at # 45
It doesn’t matter if Jr’s actions were completely legal. With a Russian attachment, it is now something for Mueller to look into to determine if there was anything criminal. He’ll have to interview, investigate, and look for other trails for evidence. All this will be done not to solve the original questions about the meeting, but to lay a perjury trap or some other snare. Jr’s scalp would be a great trophy for Mueller.
Mueller’s goal is to build snares to take down Trump or his inner circle. His investigation isn’t about Russia but to build process crimes into his investigation to be able to get indictments.
See your vague, undecipherable, and misspelled posts at #50 and #67.
Either pinpoint what the freak you’re talking about by coping and pasting what I actually wrote and explaining your objection to it or fugeddabouddit.
At this point, I could’t care less. As I said, the Lying Left has succeeded in once again distracting the Right from the Lying Left’s mountain range of crimes by getting the Right to run around in circles over some stupid, dubious, frivolous charge.
I pay no attention to such stupidity coming from the Lying Left.
I was just citing the law to answer the hypo. I haven’t studied how it applies to the facts at hand.
But when it comes to DJT Jr., I think the Lying Left has succeeded in once again distracting the Right from the Lying Left’s mountain range of crimes by getting the Right to run around in circles over some stupid, dubious, frivolous charge.
I pay no attention to such stupidity coming from the Lying Left.
As reflected in numerous cases, there is a fundamental antagonism by the Supreme Court and other federal courts against using expansive interpretations of treason and criminal statutes against common political conduct. Not only is a quid pro quo agreement hard to prove, but the common and instinctive practice of politics is to avoid them. As for Donald Trump, Jr., he did nothing wrong but was artfully drawn into a politically embarrassing meeting, a tactical error that stemmed not from dishonesty or disloyalty but from inexperience and incaution.
I was just citing the law to answer the hypo. And SCOTUS does not make national law as its constitutional scope of power is limited to the parties in the individual controversies and cases at hand and any other parties whose case has the same questions of law and fact (US Const, Art. III, Sec. 2). Also, the Constitution trumps unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions (US Const, Art. VI, Cl. 2).
I haven’t studied how the law of the Constitution applies to the facts at hand. But it is amazing to me how the Lying Left succeeds in distracting the Right and the world from the Lying Left’s mountain range of crimes by getting the Right to run around in circles over some stupid, dubious, frivolous charge.
I pay no attention to such stupidity coming from the Lying Left, and neither should anyone else or DJT Jr. himself. It’s all about deflection, distraction, and a bunch of b/s and lies from the Hypocritical Lying Left, because lying what they do. Anything to get the Right off course. The Lying Left is very good at that. So is Satan himself, who is running their show.
Why DJT Jr? Because the Lying Left perceives DJT Jr. as a potential threat, maybe in following his dad’s footsteps, maybe for 2024. What does the Lying Left do with a perceived threat from the opposition? They ALWAYS try to take them down with defamation, disinformation, and lies. NEVER by an honest debate in the forum of ideas. Why? Because the Lying Left ALWAYS loses the debate in the forum of ideas.
The law does not apply to a citizen. At least the one you cited.
You can say it does. Doesn’t make it true
No branch other than Congress can constitutionally legislate and make national law. But every federal branch including SCOTUS and every state can reject and nullify an unconstitutional federal act, law, or decision as long as it provides sound constitutionally-based rationalization for doing so.
Nevertheless, when SCOTUS does it, it is not making national law. It is striking down and unconstitutional law.
As far as Hobbs Law, SCOTUS may expressly strike down the law as long as it provides constitutionally-based rationale. If Congress erred, then it is up to Congress, not SCOTUS, to make or remake legislation accordingly.
But as far as McDonnell v. United States, the scope of the decision constitutionally reaches only to the parties involved in the case and any other parties with the same questions of law and fact. This and any other SCOTUS decision is not national law. ALL national law is constitutionally is vested in ONE branch only: Congress, the legislative branch (US Const, Art. I, Sec. 1).
Let me know when you get around to copying and pasting what I actually posted and then explaining why you disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.