Panther
Gold Member
Offline
My Heart beats True for the Red White & Blue...
Posts: 11639
Gender: 
|
KangAnon wrote on Jul 22 nd, 2017 at 8:36am: Panther wrote on Jul 21 st, 2017 at 11:08pm: There's no crime there.........it's a way of life in American Politics, & as long as he didn't aid them in procuring the info illegally (as the Russians probably did)....so even if the Russians got it illegally, & gave it to them, the Trump Team was free to use whatever they might have gotten to drag down Clinton in the eyes of those who might vote for her.....legally.
No crime in that.....It's American Way.....Politics at it's novel best & dirtiest.....Pigs fighting in the pigsty.
As far as the US Code, only an ignorant person would think that a crime could have been committed, if no law (the US Code) had been broken.
What Donny Jr. did broke no section in the US Code, therefore with no law broken, there can be no crime committed.
Where do you stand on the idea that they breached the FEC rules? Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making 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[.]”You don't think this information was "a thing of value"? And if they did meet and information did change hands, at what cost? What else does team Trump owe to the Russians? This is the whole reason why people are concerned. What other leverage does a foreign Government hold over the President of the USA?
Intelligence is based on knowledge, & one sure fire way of obtaining knowledge is to read.......
A 'little bit' of knowledge can be a dangerous thing, so it would behoove you do better than just reading a 'little bit' ...... read the lot.....read everything ......
If you read up on that particular section of the US Code... 52 U.S.C. 30121 ...you will find that your ... any other "thing of value" ... was intended to indicate any other "monetary thing of value".
Read the context of the statute itself....don't be shy....read it....& you will see that the sole intent of that entire code was to defend against foreign 'monetary' involvements into American elections & political processes, or the government itself.
What you suggest has never been used, or misconstrued to mean, anything other than monetary value.
Laws are adjudicated & determined based on their legal precedent.
There is no legal precedent, regarding this section of the US Code, pertaining to offered "information/emails" (dirt/mud), on record.
Proffering such as a 'new' form of usage would be an overreach at the very least.
In America most information obtained, that is used against political opponents, is usually stolen or gotten through dubious means ..... in today's world hacked fits the bill.....
If the offering source of this stolen/hacked information be private person(s) Corporation(s), or Foreign Government(s) is immaterial in American Law.......just as long as the eventual recipient(s) didn't aid in the information's illegal procurement, the recipient would be free to use it as they see/saw fit ...legally... & in this particular case, used against their political opponent's electoral best interests (to her political aspirations & fondest hopes).
That's the American Way, & has been for over 200 years ..... completely legal, & there is plenty of legal precedent & documentation covering it.
Newspapers & the media make many an exposé based on procured information ......occasionally procured illegally...... by 3rd parties, & the right for the Newspapers & media to use this exposé material, & protect them from having to divulge their sources, has always been protected by their free speech, & their right to free press, in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The same basic principals would cover the Trump Teams right to use any of the information gotten legally by them, regardless of who from, or how that party came in possession of the said information.
The Trump team may need to, by some laws, disclose who they met with, but the US Constitution, via the First Amendment, gives them the right to meet with whom they choose.....any time & any where.
Many Most here in Australia may not fully understand this principal, & that is simply due to the fact that the Australian Constitution has no "Bill of Rights" & therefore we have no such legal protections expressly affording us the inalienable right, rights not granted by government, to associate with whom we please.
So, in the end, Team Trumps meeting with a Russian, or Russians, is a protected right via the US Constitution.
Some call it, I believe, the Freedom of Associations. Americans, by statute, may need to disclose who they meet with, but in America the government is not permitted to forbid their freedom of associations by the Law of the Land, the US Constitution..... 
..
|
Forum
Pages: 
Russian/Trump collusion proven... (Read 15019 times)
