And can you still support him?

[oxmixmudd]

Multiple instances of obstruction, for one. Refusing to notify the FBI as it relates to the russian offering dirt at trump tower mtg for two.

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

Multiple instances of obstruction, for one. Refusing to notify the FBI as it relates to the russian offering dirt at trump tower mtg for two.

Jim

1. AG said not enough evidence.
2. Since when are ’what if’ situations crimes and what law would be broken if it happened?

Try harder, name the specific law broken and why you think it was broken.

[oxmixmudd]

But neither could he indict. Given the current DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, these arguments trump is not guilty of a crime based on that report have nothing to do with whether or not he actually committed acts that are crimes. Legal guilt is the conclusion of a legal process and often is not a valid measure of whether a crine has been commutted by that individual.

The issue of whether he committed crimes is matter distinct from legally being deemed guilty. People commit crimes all the time and are unconvicted or even 'not guilty'. OJ Simpson comes to mind. The man committed murder. He committed a crime. But he is legally innocent.

Trump has committed numerous crimes at this point, but as long as he remains president, he will remain unconvicted of any of them.

Jim

[mikewhitney]

Multiple instances of obstruction, for one. Refusing to notify the FBI as it relates to the russian offering dirt at trump tower mtg for two.

Jim

Could you please list the specific congressional laws that were violated? This will help spark the discussion.

[lilpixieofterror]

But neither could he indict. Given the current DOJ policy not to indict a sitting president, these arguments trump is not guilty of a crime based on that report have nothing to do with whether or not he actually committed acts that are crimes. Legal guilt is the conclusion of a legal process and often is not a valid measure of whether a crine has been commutted by that individual.

The issue of whether he committed crimes is matter distinct from legally being deemed guilty. People commit crimes all the time and are unconvicted or even 'not guilty'. OJ Simpson comes to mind. The man committed murder. He committed a crime. But he is legally innocent.

Trump has committed numerous crimes at this point, but as long as he remains president, he will remain unconvicted of any of them.

Jim

The AG’s letter specifically stated his decision was not based on such a policy to begin with and his anti Trump deputy AG agreed and signed too. The reality remains you have no case because there is no evidence that a crime took place. Our justice system is based on evidence, facts, and a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, in a court of law. Ironically, you’re the one wanting to throw the rule of law out the window in an attempt to ‘get Trump’. Either show a crime occurred or admit you have no evidence. Stop tip toeing around it, either there’s evidence of a crime or not.

[oxmixmudd]

The AG’s letter specifically stated his decision was not based on such a policy to begin with and his anti Trump deputy AG agreed and signed too. The reality remains you have no case because there is no evidence that a crime took place. Our justice system is based on evidence, facts, and a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, in a court of law. Ironically, you’re the one wanting to throw the rule of law out the window in an attempt to ‘get Trump’. Either show a crime occurred or admit you have no evidence. Stop tip toeing around it, either there’s evidence of a crime or not.

The AG is arguably not an objective source. He's a Trump yes-man. So you'll need to do better than that. Unfortunately, this is where we are headed with Trump. If the people enforcing the laws are themselves corrupt - refusing to enforce the laws when it comes to POTUS, then our system of justice simply cannot work. The presumption of innocence becomes a farce when the people in power selectively enforce the law or refuse to hold accountable those that have broken the law.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Could you please list the specific congressional laws that were violated? This will help spark the discussion.

I don't really understand your use of the term 'congressional law' here as opposed to 'the law', which no-one in this country is supposed to be exempt from - including POTUS. That is, I'm not sure why you qualified the 'law' with 'congressional law'.

Nevertheless, obstruction of justice is a crime, and the evidence in the Mueller report has been flagged as containing multiple instances of exactly that by over 700 prosecutors and former prosecutors. So in an environment where objectively the AG is a Trump yes man, that is about as good a declaration of that as a crime we are going to get.

As for the obligation to report foreign help, or its illegality:

Source: FEC head

The head of the Federal Election Commission released a statement on Thursday evening reiterating, emphatically, that foreign assistance is illegal in U.S. elections.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“

© Copyright Original Source

The statute may be this one:

Source: FEC campaign 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
Title 52. Voting and Elections
82
Federal Election Campaign Laws
(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) 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 22,24 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 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.25
§ 30122. Contributions in name of another prohibited
No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or
knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no
person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the
name of another person.
§ 30123. Limitation on contribution of currency
No person shall make contributions of currency of the United States or
currency of any foreign country to or for the benefit of any candidate which,
in the aggregate, exceed $100, with respect to any campaign of such
candidate for nomination for election, or for election, to Federal office.

© Copyright Original Source

Given that 'dirt' on candidates is frequently sold at rather high prices, I doubt a case could be made that the content of this meeting would not have had 'value'. Secondarily, since it is a violation of the law to make such a contribution, one is obligated to report such attempts to the authorities, as with ANY illegal act witnessed.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

The AG is arguably not an objective source.

That's the mantra from the left at any rate, but it has never been demonstrated in any meaningful way that Barr is unfairly biased in favor of Trump. But even if he was, the decision of whether or not to pursue criminal charges against the President did not rest with Barr alone. Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump and oversaw the majority of the investigation, along with other top DOJ officials affirmed Mueller's finding that it could not be concluded that the President committed any crimes. At that point, the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted was moot.

[firstfloor]

That's the mantra from the left at any rate, but it has never been demonstrated in any meaningful way that Barr is unfairly biased in favor of Trump. But even if he was, the decision of whether or not to pursue criminal charges against the President did not rest with Barr alone. Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump and oversaw the majority of the investigation, along with other top DOJ officials affirmed Mueller's finding that it could not be concluded that the President committed any crimes. At that point, the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted was moot.

Your thinking on this point is consistently back to front.

[mikewhitney]

I don't really understand your use of the term 'congressional law' here as opposed to 'the law', which no-one in this country is supposed to be exempt from - including POTUS. That is, I'm not sure why you qualified the 'law' with 'congressional law'.

Nevertheless, obstruction of justice is a crime, and the evidence in the Mueller report has been flagged as containing multiple instances of exactly that by over 700 prosecutors and former prosecutors. So in an environment where objectively the AG is a Trump yes man, that is about as good a declaration of that as a crime we are going to get.

As for the obligation to report foreign help, or its illegality:

Source: FEC head

The head of the Federal Election Commission released a statement on Thursday evening reiterating, emphatically, that foreign assistance is illegal in U.S. elections.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“

© Copyright Original Source

The statute may be this one:

Source: FEC campaign 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
Title 52. Voting and Elections
82
Federal Election Campaign Laws
(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) 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 22,24 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 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.25
§ 30122. Contributions in name of another prohibited
No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or
knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no
person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the
name of another person.
§ 30123. Limitation on contribution of currency
No person shall make contributions of currency of the United States or
currency of any foreign country to or for the benefit of any candidate which,
in the aggregate, exceed $100, with respect to any campaign of such
candidate for nomination for election, or for election, to Federal office.

© Copyright Original Source

Given that 'dirt' on candidates is frequently sold at rather high prices, I doubt a case could be made that the content of this meeting would not have had 'value'. Secondarily, since it is a violation of the law to make such a contribution, one is obligated to report such attempts to the authorities, as with ANY illegal act witnessed.


Jim

I don't see where a contribution was made ... nor where it is a law to report that someone 'wanted' to make a contribution by a foreign entity.

It would help to see specific laws applicable to the discussion -- laws that are thought to be violated. A mere statement of view by the head of FEC isn't sufficient to determine whether a law has been violated.

The basic method for determining a law has been violated is to state the law and identify the type of evidence required to demonstrate violation of the law. Then the evidence is listed. A prima facie case should thereby be established.

So you might say that Mrs. ForeignPerson is a foreign person to the US (per 30121 (a) (1), as evidenced by her passport used to enter the US.
She gave information or money to Mr. Trump, a candidate for US President of $101 value, as evidenced by the check # x, submitted as evidence herein.
This information or money gift is violation of § 30123 which says it is illegal for a foreign national to contribute more than $100.

Note that this law doesn't make it illegal for such a person to offer something of value. It is just illegal after the transaction happens. Note also that there is no problem telling that person diplomatically that it would be a violation of US law for them to contribute something more than $100.

[Mountain Man]

I don't really understand your use of the term 'congressional law' here as opposed to 'the law', which no-one in this country is supposed to be exempt from - including POTUS. That is, I'm not sure why you qualified the 'law' with 'congressional law'.

Nevertheless, obstruction of justice is a crime, and the evidence in the Mueller report has been flagged as containing multiple instances of exactly that by over 700 prosecutors and former prosecutors. So in an environment where objectively the AG is a Trump yes man, that is about as good a declaration of that as a crime we are going to get.

As for the obligation to report foreign help, or its illegality:

Source: FEC head

The head of the Federal Election Commission released a statement on Thursday evening reiterating, emphatically, that foreign assistance is illegal in U.S. elections.

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election,“ wrote Ellen Weintraub, chairwoman of the FEC. “This is not a novel concept.“

© Copyright Original Source

The statute may be this one:

Source: FEC campaign 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
Title 52. Voting and Elections
82
Federal Election Campaign Laws
(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) 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 22,24 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 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.25
§ 30122. Contributions in name of another prohibited
No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or
knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution and no
person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the
name of another person.
§ 30123. Limitation on contribution of currency
No person shall make contributions of currency of the United States or
currency of any foreign country to or for the benefit of any candidate which,
in the aggregate, exceed $100, with respect to any campaign of such
candidate for nomination for election, or for election, to Federal office.

© Copyright Original Source

Given that 'dirt' on candidates is frequently sold at rather high prices, I doubt a case could be made that the content of this meeting would not have had 'value'. Secondarily, since it is a violation of the law to make such a contribution, one is obligated to report such attempts to the authorities, as with ANY illegal act witnessed.


Jim

And yet Mueller never cited this law in his report, and he never indicted Trump Jr. despite the fact that it would have given the dirty cop tremendous leverage over the President.

Nevermind the fact that it's a huge stretch to call information about a political opponent "something of value".

[JimL]

The AG’s letter specifically stated his decision was not based on such a policy to begin with and his anti Trump deputy AG agreed and signed too. The reality remains you have no case because there is no evidence that a crime took place. Our justice system is based on evidence, facts, and a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved, in a court of law. Ironically, you’re the one wanting to throw the rule of law out the window in an attempt to ‘get Trump’. Either show a crime occurred or admit you have no evidence. Stop tip toeing around it, either there’s evidence of a crime or not.

That's true, and the trial for a President is called impeachment and it takes place in Congress which is where Mueller intended for it to take place, until Trumps hand picked lackey of an Atty. Gen. decided to try and evade that process by declaring himself that the President was innocent. That's why Barr auditioned for the job in the first place and the audition is the reason that Trump appointed him. Trump is filling government positions with yes men, idiots and lobbyists and you, the cult members, are either to psychologically blind to see it, or you just don't care and are apparently not lovers of democracy. I suppose the former could be understood and forgiven on some level, but if the latter be the case, if you see and don't care, then I would consider you to be just as treasonous as the criminal leader of your cult.
The only question then is, are you blind to what Trump is doing, brainwashed in some way, or are you treasonous?

[oxmixmudd]

I don't see where a contribution was made ... nor where it is a law to report that someone 'wanted' to make a contribution by a foreign entity.

It would help to see specific laws applicable to the discussion -- laws that are thought to be violated. A mere statement of view by the head of FEC isn't sufficient to determine whether a law has been violated.

The basic method for determining a law has been violated is to state the law and identify the type of evidence required to demonstrate violation of the law. Then the evidence is listed. A prima facie case should thereby be established.

So you might say that Mrs. ForeignPerson is a foreign person to the US (per 30121 (a) (1), as evidenced by her passport used to enter the US.
She gave information or money to Mr. Trump, a candidate for US President of $101 value, as evidenced by the check # x, submitted as evidence herein.
This information or money gift is violation of § 30123 which says it is illegal for a foreign national to contribute more than $100.

Note that this law doesn't make it illegal for such a person to offer something of value. It is just illegal after the transaction happens. Note also that there is no problem telling that person diplomatically that it would be a violation of US law for them to contribute something more than $100.

You seem to have missed what I bolded: '

It shall be unlawful for— a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

Those are all ored together, so they are all different types of things, with the last one (other thing of value) pretty much saying 'ANYTHING'. Basically, a foreign national can't provide you anything of value to help you with your campaign.

Now the second part, referencing the first, makes it reflexive:

(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.

BOTH of these things are unlawful (i.e. a crime). A foreign national is not allowed to seek trump out, and trump (or hillary, or anyone) is not allowed to seek a foreign national out, or accept anything they offer.

It's all pretty clear - not sure how you could not consider the case closed as to its illegality per what is written above.

As I see it, this law is saying - don't accept anything of value from foreigners, and you foreigners, you try to give anything of value to help out with a campaign and we'll put you in jail (or whatever they do to foreigners that break the law e.g. ones with diplomatic immunity).



Jim

ETA: I recognize you are keying on the word "contribution" and limiting that to things of clear monetary value. But information HAS monetary value. Why do you suppose blackmail works? Why do you suppose companies pay spies to get them information from their competitors? Why does Coke keep its recipe in a safe? Giving dirt on an opponent has significant monetary value. Just think how many positive adds don't have to be made once you make the negative one based on the dirt you were just given. That's a bunch of $$$.

[JimL]

That's the mantra from the left at any rate, but it has never been demonstrated in any meaningful way that Barr is unfairly biased in favor of Trump. But even if he was, the decision of whether or not to pursue criminal charges against the President did not rest with Barr alone. Rosenstein, who is no friend of Trump and oversaw the majority of the investigation, along with other top DOJ officials affirmed Mueller's finding that it could not be concluded that the President committed any crimes. At that point, the question of whether or not a sitting president can be indicted was moot.

Yeah, except Mueller never came to the conclusion that Trump and his administration didn't commit any crimes. He said, that if he could have come to that conclusion, he certainly would have said so!

[mikewhitney]

You seem to have missed what I bolded: '

It shall be unlawful for— a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value,

Those are all ored together, so they are all different types of things, with the last one (other thing of value) pretty much saying 'ANYTHING'. Basically, a foreign national can't provide you anything of value to help you with your campaign.

Now the second part, referencing the first, makes it reflexive:

(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.

BOTH of these things are unlawful (i.e. a crime). A foreign national is not allowed to seek trump out, and trump (or hillary, or anyone) is not allowed to seek a foreign national out, or accept anything they offer.

It's all pretty clear - not sure how you could not consider the case closed as to its illegality per what is written above.

As I see it, this law is saying - don't accept anything of value from foreigners, and you foreigners, you try to give anything of value to help out with a campaign and we'll put you in jail (or whatever they do to foreigners that break the law e.g. ones with diplomatic immunity).



Jim

I gave an example of how to identify how a person has violated the law. If you want to propose that Trump has violated this law, we would benefit by you laying out the basic elements that make a case against Trump. Did he solicit Trudeau for a donation of $101? If there was any soliciting by Trump, how much value was Trump seeking?