How does this follow? All what counts is what Trump Jr. has known about this info (which never appeared).
It follows because attempting to purchase stolen goods (in this case, information) is illegal. This is a fairly simple concept...
How does this follow? All what counts is what Trump Jr. has known about this info (which never appeared).
But not one he is really going to understand.It follows because attempting to purchase stolen goods (in this case, information) is illegal. This is a fairly simple concept...
This is indeed a simple concept, but why Trump Jr. would have to think that the information was stolen? I cannot see that this follows from the mail.It follows because attempting to purchase stolen goods (in this case, information) is illegal. This is a fairly simple concept...
This is indeed a simple concept, but why Trump Jr. would have to think that the information was stolen? I cannot see that this follows from the mail.
I simply assume that it does not follow in a way obvious to Trump Jr. that the information offered had something to do with DNC at all. So, whatever one thinks about DNC is irrelevant for the case of Trump Jr.I guess you want to assume the DNC simply gave a Russian agent those emails?
I simply assume that it does not follow in a way obvious to Trump Jr. that the information offered had something to do with DNC at all. So, whatever one thinks about DNC is irrelevant for the case of Trump Jr.
Irrelevant (as well as unlikely). She had the info to give - it was released later.And informant which does not give information is not an informant.
That's irrelevant. He broke the law anyway - the obvious illegality of however they obtained legally unobtainable stuff about Clinton is just icing on the sentencing cake.I simply assume that it does not follow in a way obvious to Trump Jr. that the information offered had something to do with DNC at all. So, whatever one thinks about DNC is irrelevant for the case of Trump Jr.
He didn't read it for fun, and move on. He called two very busy and critically important pals in the middle of a bigtime campaign and reserved a hotel room near Trump's, for a face meeting. And he knew who she was.Of course, he would expect it, as well as I expect it when I read, just for fun, an offer of some lawyer of a late Nigerian millionaire.
Because this is what every lawyer tells everybody: Don't tell anything.Then why, I wonder, did Trump Jr make an effort to hide the meeting?
Really? What I have heard is that she is nobody, the meeting was boring loss of time.Irrelevant (as well as unlikely). She had the info to give - it was released later.
Why you think the stuff about Clinton was not legally obtainable? Why do you think Trump Jr. has known this? Why you think Trump Jr. should care? Should all the newspapers have cared about the info obtained by Snowden were obtained illegally? I think they have done a good job not to care, legal or not. You think otherwise?That's irrelevant. He broke the law anyway - the obvious illegality of however they obtained legally unobtainable stuff about Clinton is just icing on the sentencing cake.
In addition, we do not know whether or not she gave him info. So far it's just their claims - and people who will go to jail if the truth comes out will often lie.Irrelevant (as well as unlikely). She had the info to give - it was released later.
Fuck.He knows that if his son is tried and found guilty, he can just pardon him and Jnr will never see the inside of a prison cell.
Or merely agreed to release it later when it would do damage, after receiving some quo in the form of platform changes and language in speeches and propaganda focusing - assurances that Trump would play ball once elected.In addition, we do not know whether or not she gave him info.
But not cheat and steal, as is the issue here. Not take bribes or blackmail threats from foreign powers when promised, under oath mind, under contract both legal and handshake, to represent the American people.And don't forget that my problem is not if it is illegal or not. It is §19 UDHR that everyone has the right ... to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
They were obsessed by the matter, in the US. They talked of almost nothing else about the case - to the exclusion of dealing with the information revealed, most of the time.Should all the newspapers have cared about the info obtained by Snowden were obtained illegally? I think they have done a good job not to care, legal or not. You think otherwise?
Because I am informed in the matter of the history of Clinton - all the legal stuff is public info as of decades ago and ever since. She has been hounded by the best investigators billionaires can buy her entire adult life.Why you think the stuff about Clinton was not legally obtainable?
Too funny - now your ears have gone the way of of your eyes. Wo bist du indeed - you can't even play.Really? What I have heard is that she is nobody, the meeting was boring loss of time.
Trump Jr. was cheated. What has he stolen? Which oath has he taken to represent something else than a private firm?But not cheat and steal, as is the issue here. Not take bribes or blackmail threats from foreign powers when promised, under oath mind, under contract both legal and handshake, to represent the American people.
So they have published info which has been stolen? And this was ok?They were obsessed by the matter, in the US. They talked of almost nothing else about the case - to the exclusion of dealing with the information revealed, most of the time.
Ok, you may know it, if you are an insider from the Clinton team or so. But Trump Jr. was obliged to know it? He could not think that the info promised in the cheat - Clinton having done something discrediting her in relations with Russia, or with Russian oligarchs, so that the Russian investigators could have got legal access to the facts by asking these oligarchs - is plausible? Maybe their sources are inferior to those of billionaires in the US. But not in Russia. That billionaire or so who bought key parts of American nuclear industry or so (don't remember the details), who can tell what was necessary to arrange this, is inaccessible to Russian investigators?Because I am informed in the matter of the history of Clinton - all the legal stuff is public info as of decades ago and ever since. She has been hounded by the best investigators billionaires can buy her entire adult life.
And because it is coming from the Russian mob/government - whose legal resources in gathering such information are far inferior to those available to American billionaires.
Junior was acting as an agent of his father's campaign for President. In that capacity he broke several laws in an attempt to cheat and rob (via swindle) the American people by agreeing to arrange for their President to be compromised, bribed, vulnerable to blackmail, and representing the interests of a foreign power (as well as that private firm) rather than the American citizenry and Constitution.Trump Jr. was cheated. What has he stolen? Which oath has he taken to represent something else than a private firm?
They cared about the legality. A lot. You claimed they didn't. They did. You made a false claim. I corrected it.So they have published info which has been stolen? And this was ok?
Any informed American knows that, and anyone campaigning against Clinton has faced that as a central fact immediately.Ok, you may know it, if you are an insider from the Clinton team or so. But Trump Jr. was obliged to know it?
Nothing that Trump's (or other Russian-connected and Republican enemies of Clinton over the past thirty years) own asking of Russian oligarchs would not have revealed already, in the normal course of events.He could not think that the info promised in the cheat - Clinton having done something discrediting her in relations with Russia, or with Russian oligarchs, so that the Russian investigators could have got legal access to the facts by asking these oligarchs - is plausible?
That means, it is legal to publish (and, that means, to seek and receive) information which was stolen? Fine. This was my point. They have published (after seeking and receiving) information Snowden has stolen from NSA, and, you say, they have cared about legality, thus, it was legal. Fine.They cared about the legality. A lot. You claimed they didn't. They did. You made a false claim. I corrected it.
Ok, you may know it, if you are an insider from the Clinton team or so. But Trump Jr. was obliged to know it?
LOL. Any informed American knows that Clinton has never never done anything illegal, or simply compromising her, in their relations with Russians. And everything Clinton has done was so obviously highly moral and without any doubt legal, that even Trump Jr. cannot claim, in an attempt to defend himself, that he has not aware about the complete innocence of Holy Hillary. YMMD. I have not expected that playing devil's (sorry, Trump Jr.'s) advocate may be that funny.Any informed American knows that, and anyone campaigning against Clinton has faced that as a central fact immediately.
Why are you chasing this rabbit? This has nothing to do with Junior's lawbreaking.That means, it is legal to publish (and, that means, to seek and receive) information which was stolen? Fine. This was my point. They have published (after seeking and receiving) information Snowden has stolen from NSA, and, you say, they have cared about legality, thus, it was legal. Fine.
That's the opposite of what I said. You got it backwards.LOL. Any informed American knows that Clinton has never never done anything illegal, or simply compromising her, in their relations with Russians. And everything Clinton has done was so obviously highly moral and without any doubt legal, that even Trump Jr. cannot claim, in an attempt to defend himself, that he has not aware about the complete innocence of Holy Hillary.
Are they lying, or are they stupid - the eternal question when dealing with American fascist propaganda spewers.I have not expected that playing devil's (sorry, Trump Jr.'s) advocate may be that funny.
It becomes comical.
... .