The Right Side of the News

They were mostly conversations that happened in private, and the attendees regularly lied and said there were no contacts or about the nature of the contacts.IOW the opposite of what you said.

There's a very good reason why we don't have lists of such contacts by any other political team.

FECA also prohibits soliciting anything of value from foreign nationals. It sure seems obvious to me that's what Don Jr was doing in that famous meeting.

quote:

---

(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
(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.

---

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Faith, this is the 21st century. Do you really think that money is the only thing of value?The law says "anything of value". Some information is of tremendous value to a campaign. Information such as dirt on your opponent or the internal workings of their campaign.President Trump has twice acknowledged that Junior's famous meeting was (at least in part) about gathering valuable information. August 5,2018:

quote:

---

"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower," Trump wrote in a Sunday tweet. "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"

---

Of course he had no evidence of its legality and prevalence; if he was correct we'd have a lot more politicians in jail.July 17, 2017:

quote:

---

"I think from a practical standpoint most people would've taken that meeting. It's called opposition research, or even research into your opponent," Trump said at a news conference in July 2017 when asked why his son would take the meeting rather than alert the FBI. "That's very standard in politics. Politics is not the nicest business in the world, but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information."

---

Note the "solicit" in the law I posted. Junior has admitted that he thought the Russian lawyer was offering information on Hillary. One could argue that enthusiastic acceptance of the meeting, knowing it was about Hillary dirt was soliciting information. If he said something like "So, what do you have on Hillary?" he was soliciting information.Enthusiastic acceptance:

quote:

---

Trump Jr also admitted on Tuesday night that he could have handled the situation better but he had not told his father about meeting a Russian lawyer because “it was a nothing”.

​

The emails show music promoter Rob Goldstone telling the future US president’s son that “the crown prosecutor of Russia” had offered “to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father”.

​

British-born Goldstone adds in the exchange of 3 June 2016: “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr Trump.”

​

Seventeen minutes later, Trump Jr welcomes this with the reply: “If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.”

​

In a later email, Goldstone describes the Russian lawyer they are due to meet, Natalia Veselnitskaya, as a “Russian government attorney”.

---

Junior posted the emails for all to see, so there's no issue of faked quotes.

Those quotes are not innuendos. They are publicly available and acknowledged by them as accurate.The law is not innuendo. I posted the appropriate law. It's not complicated, and there are plenty of lawyers who agree with what I wrote.This particular case hasn't been tested in court, which is the final determination. Of course there are lawyers who will argue the opposite side. But it'll be a steep uphill climb against such a clear law.BTW my message is an example of how to support claims with evidence. Calling that "innuendo" makes your inability to handle reality embarrassing obvious.

When has she been out of unsubstantiated denial mode?

Extremely well supported leftist opinion.Far, far more well supported than any of your accusations. Have any of Hillary's or Obama’s alleged 'crimes" been tested in court? What is the text of the laws you think they broke?Of course the answers are "no" and "I haven't a clue". But claiming certainty of wild, debunked, and unsupported accusations is OK if you're a Republican. Democrats can't have an opinion until the Supreme Court decides, and often not even then.The contacts between the Trump campaign/administration and Russia are without precedent and astonishing innumber. The June meeting with Junior and the Russians is at least arguably illegal. Deal with it.

I know a lot about the opinions and lies on the right.I'm posting facts, which are obviously meaningless to you. You can't deal with them.If you have something to say, say it.

None of the dossier has been disproven. Some of it has been verified.Purchasing information is not illegal, per the law I posted. It's not a CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION of something of value. Here's the law again:

quote:

---

) 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
(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.

---

So Hillary's campaign paying part of the cost of the dossier is legal. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying.But your opinions trump the law, amirite?It is nice to see once again your explicit disinterest in reality. You're snug as a bug in a rug in your bubble of right-wing lies. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

One fell swoop of research to find the facts.

quote:

---

None of the dossier has been disproven. Some of it has been verified.
Purchasing information is not illegal, per the law I posted. It's not a CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION of something of value. Here's the law again:

​

quote:

---

) 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
(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.

---

​

So Hillary's campaign paying part of the cost of the dossier is legal. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or lying.

​

But your opinions trump the law, amirite?

​

It is nice to see once again your explicit disinterest in reality. You're snug as a bug in a rug in your bubble of right-wing lies.

---

No defence of your libeling Hillary, I see.

So people are leaving California and you assume it's because the liberals are bad.No mention of California's economy.

You said the first three minutes would be enough. I watched the first three minutes. The only fact presented was that California is losing some population, and no hint of why.

Proven false a day or two ago. At least make some some effort to keep up.E.g. Hillary's campaign purchasing the non-debunked dossier is legal.

This administration will never increase the number of legal immigrants or refugees
Quite the opposite. Lots of right-wingers agree.
.