Random Politics & Religion #25

Omg Don JR went to a meeting on the premise it had damaging campaign info on his opponent. I think the collusion case is now solved with this "bombshell". Drumpf is done now for sure.

I feel like im watching a group of perpetual victims collecively loose their mind. It doesnt matter if its nothing. They will pretend it to be something until it actually becomes something.

Meanwhile Hillarys campaign once again is known to have crossed the standard now set by multiple times when she colluded with ukraine to dig up dirt on trump.

This is breathtaking to watch.

It's The End of Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is about the dangers of vaccines and the creation of the lizard people.

Oooh another one of those moral equivalency articles. Only difference is one group is dumb enough to post the evidence of their intent. Jokes on them.

Russia Scandal: No wonder former FBI Director James Comey refused to press charges last summer against Hillary Clinton for her egregious security breaches: It turns out, he may have been guilty of the same thing.

As the inside-the-beltway political publication The Hill reported, more than half of the memos FBI Director James Comey wrote after having spoken to President Trump about the Russia investigation contained classified information. The Hill cites as its sources "officials familiar with the documents."

Not surprisingly, perhaps, Trump on Monday morning tweeted out an angry response: "James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!"

He may be onto something there.

All told, Comey wrote seven memos based on nine meetings with Trump. In testimony to Congress, he asserted that he had made sure the memos in question didn't have classified material. But a subsequent investigation found markings on four of the memos indicating secret information, the kind that is not allowed to be routinely released to the public.

Comey has long maintained that the memos were his personal property, but virtually no legal authority agrees with that. Nor does the FBI, for that matter. The memos were created on government time and related directly to his work, so they were the property of government.

In short, it sounds like a game of cover-your-hindquarters he's been playing. Because Comey later let outsiders see those memos, and made sure they were leaked to the Trump-hating press, in this case the New York Times, so any protestations of innocence on his part sound more than a little weak.

Let's be very clear here: What Comey did is against FBI rules, and it's a violation of federal secrecy laws, on a par with the violation that Hillary Clinton committed when she decided to run the Secretary of State's office from a private, home-brew email server that was clearly illegal.

The agreement signed by all FBI employees says that "all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America."

It goes on to add that agents "will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI."

Hillary signed a similar agreement at the State Department. Yet, she routinely put classified information onto public servers, where it could be grabbed by unscrupulous actors, such as the Chinese and the Russians.

How does that compare to Comey, who asked a lawyer-friend at Columbia University, Prof. Daniel Richman, to leak his memos containing classified information to the news media?

The goal of the handoff was to generate stories so that a special prosecutor would be named to investigate Russian meddling in the U.S. election and, more to the point, Democratic rumors that Trump had colluded with the Russians to beat Hillary.

In short, Comey appears to have delivered classified information to the New York Times and other media for the sole political purpose of bringing down President Trump.

Comey's actions help explain a lot of things that people have puzzled over since last year. During last summer's campaign and the growing scandal over Hillary's cavalier treatment of U.S. secrets on her email server, Comey came to her rescue.

Yes, he said in July, Clinton's actions were "extremely careless." But stung by the criticism he received from the left, he later in the month said that Clinton's violations didn't rise to the level of a prosecutable crime.

On Oct. 28, he revealed that more emails had been found on an unsecured laptop belonging to former Rep. Anthony Wiener, estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. On Nov. 6, just two days before the election, Comey announced Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted. Case closed.

Comey's later actions suggest, if anything, he learned from Hillary's chutzpah. You can flout U.S. law, and as long as you have friends and political clout, get away with it — even use your illegality as a bludgeon against your political foes.

Moreover, a June piece by Fox News noted at least 14 stories written by the New York Times going back to Jan. 10 containing "confidential information related to Trump and the FBI, mostly sourced anonymously from senior officials in the FBI and DOJ." Comey, it seems, has been working overtime to sabotage Trump.

This calls into serious question the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to look into the rumors of election meddling by Russia. Comey and Mueller are close friends.

At minimum, Mueller must recuse himself on the Trump matters now before him. His friendship with Comey makes impartiality impossible, and it's a clear conflict.

More importantly, Comey got Hillary off the hook last year from what appeared to be a slam-dunk prosecution. And please remember, no one thought at the time that Trump had any chance at all of beating Hillary.

Now, we find out Comey played a double game with the public and the newly elected president. A case of a deep-state operative, Comey, trying to sabotage Washington-outsider Trump? Or just someone with a fast-and-loose idea about following the law?

Wonder what it's like being a Liberal. So much self hatred. Denial. facts I don't like. I dont get it.

We all know Trump is not just a New Yorker. He's actually a Russian secret double agent spy. Very obvious CNN caught him red handed.

Yep that's totally it ...

Many of you in this forum do not keep up with the news cycle so it's fun to read this knee jerk responses but DJT Jr fell on his sword this morning by releasing his emails.

If we pretend he commited a crime does that make it criminal or are we saying Trump Jr is actually the Kremlin in disguise. 'Sounds like a big nothing burger'.

Omg Don JR went to a meeting on the premise it had damaging campaign info on his opponent. I think the collusion case is now solved with this "bombshell". Drumpf is done now for sure.

Another big nothing-burger

Ah yes the old "we're ignorant the concept of evidence of criminal intent and what law was broken, so it must be nothing" routine.

Oooh another one of those moral equivalency articles. Only difference is one group is dumb enough to post the evidence of their intent. Jokes on them.

JR wanted dirt on Hillary for campaign purposes.

WHAT A MONSTER!

https://mobile.twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166/photo/1


I didn't know he was a working for CNN...someone should inform his dad the President.

Heck, by the looks of it (also the lack of any "incriminating releases to the press about such information) they didn't use this information. Trump Jr. obviously has more brains on him than Comey.

Fell on his sword

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.

(h) Providing substantial assistance.

(1) No person shall knowingly provide substantial assistance in the solicitation, making, acceptance, or receipt of a contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d), and (g) of this section.

hehe

Hysteria among the media and Trump opponents over the prospect of “collusion” between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin may have hit its crescendo this week. That’s right: The wailing from the media and their allies about Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with some “Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer” (whatever that means) may be the last gasp of this faux scandal. Good riddance.

Predictably, the New York Times started the ball rolling with front-page coverage, going so far as to argue, “The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.” As if this were some breakthrough moment. The Times followed up with a headline yesterday that the meeting request and subject matter discussed in the prior story were transmitted to Trump Jr. via an email. Holy cow. The Times is so desperate to move the story that the meeting’s arrangement over email is being made into Page 1 news. You would have thought it had come through a dead drop under a bridge somewhere.

And, of course, CNN has been apoplectic in its breathless coverage, running one story after another about this “development” on the air and online. But Politico takes the prize for the most over-the-top, made-up news, claiming that Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting could amount to a crime.

As I have written before, there are always people hovering around campaigns trying to peddle information and traffic in supposed silver bullets. There should be nothing to report on when a private citizen who works at a campaign takes a meeting with a friend of a friend offering information about an opponent. And yet, the media wants to make it a smoking gun.

If taking meetings with such people is a crime, then I hope there is a statute of limitations — because I would have been a repeat offender.

Don’t get me wrong. Trump Jr. should not have taken the meeting. These offers of information on the down-low are greeted with eye-rolling, and red flags are almost always clearly visible. No senior campaign official, much less a family member of the candidate, should take such a meeting.

Having the meeting was a rookie, amateur mistake. Between human curiosity and a campaign professional’s duty to get the dirt when you can, Trump Jr. likely felt that the person had to be heard. However, the meeting should have been handed off to a lackey. Said lackey would have then reported the scoop — or lack thereof — and awaited further instruction.

After seeing today’s email exchange dump from Trump Jr., I double down on the idea that this meeting was a rookie, amateur mistake. Even the lackey should not have taken this meeting. It was bad judgment, but not collaboration with the Russians.

Just imagine: Trump Jr. is sitting there when he gets an email — from a music promoter — screaming with red flags and some comical language (does Russia even have a “Crown prosecutor”?) and he takes the bait. Wince! Anybody should have known better.

Anyway, Trump Jr. took the one-off meeting, and nothing happened. Is that not proof of non-collusion in and of itself? If you choose to believe otherwise, your disdain for President Trump is getting the best of you and you need help.

Regarding the delusion that a crime actually occurred in any of this, my favorite allegation is that by having this meeting and listening to what was said, Donald Trump Jr. somehow could have violated the law. According to Politico, Trump Jr.’s “statements put him potentially in legal cross hairs for violating federal criminal statutes prohibiting solicitation or acceptance of anything of value from a foreign national, as well as a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

I’m just barely a lawyer, but I know over-lawyering when I see it. I mean, by that standard, what if someone walked into a campaign and suggested an idea that led to that candidate’s victory? Would it have been a crime to accept “a thing of value” in the form of an idea? Of course not.

This whole thing is getting weird.

For many in the media and elsewhere, the collective grievances that they have against Trump personally, the White House as a whole and Trump’s policies somehow justify their zealous promotion of the “collusion scandal.” But not because the story is valid. Rather, the media know that they are not getting to Trump with anything else. Today, much of the “news coverage” of Trump and Co. is about payback. The media thinks they aren’t getting the truth and so they don’t have to deliver it either. It is a bad cycle that is not working for the White House or the media. With this much intensity, it is hard to see how this ends well.

While interesting your opinions do not reflect those of the legal experts or the law.

11 CFR 110.20. Section (b)


The concept of Solicitation is a *** in this situation