So says Facebook.

But the argument is that the information purportedly came from the Russian government and was to be passed on to Don Jr. by a Russian government attorney.

Yes, yes, yes. As we now know, that was all bullshit. Nothing came from the Russian government, the lawyer didn't work for the Russian government, and there was no incriminating information to pass on. It was all a ruse.

BUT, according to the emails, Don Jr. didn't know that at the time of the meeting. He was told the information WAS coming from the Russian government and was to be passed on to him by a Russian government attorney, and he went to the meeting believing that.

BUT, according to the emails, Don Jr. didn't know that at the time of the meeting. He was told the information WAS coming from the Russian government and was to be passed on to him by a Russian government attorney, and he went to the meeting believing that.

A 20 minute meeting where no information/documents were passed to him.

There has to be evidence in a crime.

A 20 minute meeting where no information/documents were passed to him.

Jared Kushner walked out after 10 minutes. I think Don Jr. hung around as a courtesy.

Documents can be passed on quickly. I think she used the 20 minutes to make her case on the adoption issue.

If documents were passed, why were they never used? That makes no sense. Trump's son, Trump's son-in- law, and Trump's campaign manager receive damaging documents on Hillary but keep them a secret during a campaign they were losing at the time?

This is a gut check moment.

Do any of you really CARE whether or not Donald Trump Jr. met with somebody from Russia?

It's not illegal to meet with Russians, to have business dealings with them, to share information with them. National secrets, sure, but the Trumps had no access to national secrets.

It's no more illegal to meet with Russian government officials than it is to meet with Israeli government officials.

No matter how much some people just absolutely HATE Russia and hate Russians, and remember the Cold War, it is an objective fact that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union, NOT a declared enemy, we are NOT at war with Russia, and that it isn't illegal for Americans to meet with foreign government officials. It is not illegal for Dennis Rodman to go partying with Kim Jong Un, and it is not illegal for a Trump to meet with a Russian government lawyer.

The ENTIRE THING regarding Trump and the Russians is hysterical, over-the- top bullshit spun out of nothing. It's based on the proposition that there is something WRONG with working with Russians: there isn't. The only reason the suggestion is being made is because Democrats hate Trump and hate the people who voted for Trump.

The opposition is using this to play on people's fears and distrust of Russia, to try and make a charge against a non-offense.

What this is is pretty much exactly the same things the tabloids just did, when they published pictures of Asthon Kutcher getting on a private plane with a brunette and had tabloids screaming "Ashton Kutcher caught CHEATING on Mila Kunis", because, you know, if a man goes somewhere with a woman it's an affair.

Well, just because a man does something with a woman does NOT mean that there's an affair going on. In that particular case, Kutcher was flying somewhere with his cousin. The tabloids are now backing down with various embarrassing excuses.

If Kutcher were Trump, CNN would double down and suggest that they had caught him in INCEST.

That's how over the top it is.

EVERYTHING regarding Russia in this case - everything - is all made up bullshit. And it DOESN'T MATTER if Trump Jr. THOUGHT he was talking with Russians and getting dirt on Hillary from them. Hillary is a scumbag, and it's not illegal to get dirt on your opponents directly from Russian INTELLIGENCE if they're willing to give it.

No matter how much hysteria is pumped into this story by lying jackasses, there's nothing there.

The best answer to all of it is to say "Even if it's all TRUE - SO WHAT?" Don't even cede the high ground. IF Trump had help from the Russians - GOOD. Hillary was in bed with the Russian oligarchs. As Secretary of State she handed over a huge part of the US's uranium supply for Russian mining and processing. When we treat the whole Russia thing seriously - when we try to "debunk" it - we cede power to the Trump haters, because we act as though that - if what they allege were true - Trump did something wrong. Fact is, even if the allegations are all true, Trump did NOTHING WRONG. It's not WRONG to talk to the Russians. It's not wrong to get opposition research from them. The Left has gone mad because they lost. They are throwing Russia at the wall, because they figure that right wingers are morons who will go non- linear at every mention of Russia. We on the Right have to stop being morons. So, Trump got information from the Russians that helped defeat Hillary? GOOD. That's the right answer. That's the right attitude. Don't you hate Hillary Clinton and the American Left more than you hate the Russians? I certainly do.

No matter how much some people just absolutely HATE Russia and hate Russians, and remember the Cold War, it is an objective fact that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union, NOT a declared enemy, we are NOT at war with Russia, and that it isn't illegal for Americans to meet with foreign government officials. It is not illegal for Dennis Rodman to go partying with Kim Jong Un, and it is not illegal for a Trump to meet with a Russian government lawyer. The ENTIRE THING regarding Trump and the Russians is hysterical, over-the- top bullshit spun out of nothing. It's based on the proposition that there is something WRONG with working with Russians: there isn't. The only reason the suggestion is being made is because Democrats hate Trump and hate the people who voted for Trump.

You are right. What is truly illegal? I would be asking the question of what federal statute has been broken. No one can answer that on the screaming liberal side. The independent prosecutor is just there to find everything and anything that might lead to some other accusation. It's political.

Yeah it is hysterical. Yesterday on another site I opined the MSM has been utilizing the "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" guilt by association investigative method. If you read some of the NYTs articles it goes: this guy knew this actress, who knew a real estate developer, who knew a lawyer who used to work for a banker, who is now in government. Who took tea the other day at the Kremlin visiting the Kremlin and he drank from the same pot of tea that Putin did earlier in the morning.

That is basically their 'collusion.' The 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon method.

Yep. Ashton Kutcher is OBVIOUSLY cheating on his wife by joining the mile high club with his first cousin, because...well...because it's a more interesting story than "family goes on a trip"...if you hate Ashton Kutcher.

Basically, where I am is this: anybody who says anything bad about Trump is an ignoramus and an asshole who can't think for himself - either a partisan fool of the Left, or a butthurt Bush supporter of the Right.

Nobody who says anything bad about Trump has any credibility, and every single thing they have to say on any other matter should be disregarded, because obviously they are dishonest or stupid. And anybody who keeps wasting our time with this pointless Trump crap deserves himself or herself to be hounded, harrassed, insulted and generally rejected as a human being, because that's what THEY are trying to do.

The difference is that Trump is innocent of all of it, but the ignorant, braying jackass asshole who keeps after Trump over nothing actually IS a shitstain who deserves to be popped in the mouth.

Oh, and fired. I don't need lynch mob shitstains in MY office.

See how that works?

Essentially, everybody who wants to destroy Trump should himself or herself be destroyed instead. It's justice. I'm tired of the subject, and I don't care what Trump did, but I DO want the people who keep braying about it to be silenced.

Provoke them to riot, then shoot them. I don't care.

Yes, I think there are many of us that sick of hearing Russia, Russia, Russia.

Turn Sessions loose, start getting indictments on any & all demoturds, shitlerly, Rinos, etc. Let them swat at flies for a change.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Shut down Mueller. He should never have been appointed in the first place. We do not need to let some grand inquisitor go hog wild.

Cut off all funding and close the investigation.

Other inapplicable brainfarts.

Collusion is not a crime.

Treason is making war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemy. Constructive treason is "treason imputed to a person by law from his conduct or courtse of actions, though his deeds taken severally do not amount to actual treason. This doctrine is not known in the United States." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed.

BUT, according to the emails, Don Jr. didn't know that at the time of the meeting. He was told the information WAS coming from the Russian government

No, Trump Jr. was told the information was being leaked by a Russian government official.

Donald Trump Jr. received an email from Rob Goldstone, not a Russian government agent.

Trump Jr. did not go to the meeting, the meeting came to him, 725 5th AVe., 25th floor, brought to the meeting by Rob Goldstone.

The Russian lawyer did not have an entry visa and was granted parole entry into the United States by the Obama Justice Department.

As with a U.S. government lawyer, a Russian government lawyer would not be representing her government on unofficial business.

What is the alleged crime of meeting with a third-party Russian lawyer for the purpose of receiving unspecified alleged official documents allegedly leaked by a Russian government official with whom Trump Jr. had no direct contact whatever?

Nobody claims any documents were passed.

Nobody claims that the Russian lawyer attempted to pass on any documents or information about Hillary Clinton.

Nobody claimed any personal knowledge or possession of documents. The only claimed knowledge of documents is Rob Goldstone alleging that an acquaintance of Trump Jr. had allegedly alleged that his Russian government relative was allegedly desirous of leaking some unspecified official documents to the Trump campaign.

It sounds about as criminal as downloading a document from Wikileaks.

And the documents sound as real as Teo Manti's girlfriend.

It reads more like a sting operation. The lawyer did not have to be in on it. Goldstone could have told her he could get a meeting where she could pitch opposition to the Magnitsky Act. But who had the power to grant the Russian lawyer parole entry into the United States without a visa? Loretta Lynch's Department of Justice.

"No, Trump Jr. was told the information was being leaked by a Russian government official."

Well, let's see exactly what he was told:

" The Crown prosecutor of Russia ... offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary ... This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump ..."

That's not my definition of a "leak".

"a Russian government lawyer would not be representing her government on unofficial business."

I agree. And as it turns out, she didn't work for the Kremlin. BUT, she was described in the email as a government employee:

"Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday."

Meaning that Don Jr. thought she was.

So what is your point. No laws were broke.

"What is the alleged crime of meeting with a third-party Russian lawyer for the purpose of receiving unspecified alleged official documents allegedly leaked by a Russian government official with whom Trump Jr. had no direct contact whatever?"

I don't see a crime there. But that's not the issue.

From the information in the emails, Don Jr. thought he was meeting with a Russian government attorney who was acting as a go-between to pass on incriminating information about Hillary. This information was coming from a named high-level Russian government official demonstrating the Russian government's support for Trump.

Now, that was all a lie. A scam. A sting. A setup. Call it whatever you want. But Don Jr. didn't know that when he set up the meeting.

The fact that he took the meeting seems to demonstrate an attempt at collusion with the Russian government to influence the campaign. No?

No.

So what is your point. No laws were broke.

See my #13.

Personally, I don't see a crime. I can, however, see how this could be twisted to look like an attempted violation of FEC or CFR laws.

Now, if I were Don Jr., I would say that I took the meeting to see what the documents contained. After all, they were supposed to be "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia". I would say that if the documents showed evidence of violations of FEC or CFR laws, that I would have immediately turned them over to the FBI.

But who had the power to grant the Russian lawyer parole entry into the United States without a visa? Loretta Lynch's Department of Justice.

The fact which falls on deaf ears in our state run media.

"No."

Then I suppose that settles it, huh?

So you think he should make up a cover story. No need just stick to the truth.

Yes.

So you think he should make up a cover story. No need just stick to the truth.

Cover story? The truth?

Do you know something we don 't? Are you the sole owner of "the truth"? How do you know that wasn't the reason he went to the meeting?

So you think he should make up a cover story. No need just stick to the truth. Cover story? The truth?

Do you know something we don 't? Are you the sole owner of "the truth"? How do you know that wasn't the reason he went to the meeting?

You are the one who said what he should do. You described what he should do. If you don't know (you don't) what he was thinking you were advising us that he should make up a story.

I said stick to the truth.

You are the one who said what he should do.

No, I said what I would say if I were him.

This information was coming from a named high-level Russian government official

No, it was allegedly being provided by the "Crown prosecutor of Russia." There is no "Crown" anything in a republic, such as Russia. It was allegedly coming from a fictional character.

The fact that he took the meeting seems to demonstrate an attempt at collusion with the Russian government to influence the campaign. No?

No. There is no suggestion of a leak by the Russian government. There is only the suggestion of a leak by one non-existent Russian government official who was allegedly proposing to act outside his official duties to leak information.

Now, that was all a lie. A scam. A sting. A setup. Call it whatever you want.

Ok. I'd call it quite possibly a staged event to create the appearance of a Russia connection at Trump Tower to enable the Obama administration to creatively support an application to a FISA court to grant an application for foreign surveillance, the results of such surveillance then being subjected to the unveiling of the names of the U.S. persons therein.

There is no "Crown" anything in a republic, such as Russia.

"Goldstone seems to have garbled things a bit; in the United Kingdom a Crown prosecutor is one that works for the Crown, i.e., a federal prosecutor. There’s no such position in Russia technically, but the analogue would be the top federal prosecutor of Russia, and that is Yury Chaika, the prosecutor-general of the Russian Federation."
-- theatlantic.com

Goldstone seems to have garbled things a bit

He referred to a nonexistent position. What Russian source could have referred to a crown prosecutor?

As a Dem scam event, any Russian government connection would have been unnecessary and unwanted. Ms. Veselnitskaya could have arrived only to pitch opposition to the Magnitsky Act. The Dem scammer seeking to manufacture cause to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump Tower would not have cared what was confusedly said at the meeting. They only cared that a meeting with a Russian lawyer was taken at Trump Tower.

There is no actual evidence of any involvement of Yuri Chaika, nor is there any actual evidence of any anti-Hillary information or document involved or pitched at the meeting.

Moreover, Goldstone told the WSJ that by Crown prosecutor, he meant Veselnitskaya.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker

Goldstone told the Wall Street Journal his reference to the “crown prosecutor” meant Veselnitskaya, which seems unlikely as she is a defence lawyer and has never been a prosecutor. In the same exchange Goldstone referred to her as an “attorney”.

The Agalarovs were Trump’s partners in Russia during the 2013 Miss Universe contest hosted in Moscow, and Trump had even appeared in one of Emin’s music videos. Goldstone had worked as Emin’s agent.

Agalarov told a Russian radio station on Wednesday that he was not involved in setting up the meeting. “What’s Hillary Clinton got to do with this? I don’t know. I don’t know Rob Goldstone at all,” he said. He did admit that Goldstone had worked for his son.

What Russian source could have referred to a crown prosecutor?

None. But he was Australian, so it would be natural for him to refer to the top guy as the "Crown prosecutor".

"There is no actual evidence of any involvement of Yuri Chaika, nor is there any actual evidence ..."

I don't care. That's beside the point. My point is that Don Jr. believed these things and set up the meeting anyways.

So what. It isn't illegal or immoral. What is your point?

he was Australian, so it would be natural for him to refer to the top guy as the "Crown prosecutor".

Why was it natural for Goldstone, because he was Australian, to refer Yuri Chaikin as the Crown prosecutor??? The top guy is the Attorney-General of Australia. A crown prosecutor in Australia is not a government servant or a potentate. They are private counsel retained by the Office of Public Prosecutions to prosecute cases. It would make sense for Goldstone to refer to Natalia Veselnitskaya as a crown prosecutor if he wrongly believed she were still working for the prosecutors' office, and wrongly assumed she was prosecuting cases, which she never did. She was not litigating in court for the prosecutors office.

I repeat:

Goldstone told the WSJ that by Crown prosecutor, he meant Veselnitskaya.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker

Goldstone told the Wall Street Journal his reference to the “crown prosecutor” meant Veselnitskaya, which seems unlikely as she is a defence lawyer and has never been a prosecutor. In the same exchange Goldstone referred to her as an “attorney”.

Veselnitskaya has not been shown to have any government position.

I don't care.... My point is that Don Jr. believed these things and set up the meeting anyways.

Please explain your mindreading skills. How have you determined that Donald Jr. believed that there was a crown prosecutor of Russia, or that he mistook Goldstone's reference to Veselnitskaya to refer to Yuri Chaika?

Donald Jr. did not set up the meeting. Goldstone set up the meeting. Donald Jr. agreed to take the meeting proposed by Goldstone.

What was Velnitskaya doing in the country without a visa, and perhaps with only an expired parole?

Goldstone told the WSJ that by Crown prosecutor, he meant Veselnitskaya.

A) That was after the meeting and B) Don Jr. didn't know that.

Once again, for the thick-headed, my point was that Don Jr. set up the meeting believing that something entirely more nefarious was going on.

If a guy sets up a meeting for sex with a girl he believes is 14, it's a crime. You're arguing that since we later we found out that she's really 19 the guy didn't do anything wrong.

What was Velnitskaya doing in the country without a visa, and perhaps with only an expired parole?

"Da bitch set him up!"

Please explain your mindreading skills. How have you determined that Donald Jr. believed that there was a crown prosecutor of Russia, or that he mistook Goldstone's reference to Veselnitskaya to refer to Yuri Chaika?

Because Don Jr. is a smart guy and you're obviously confused. Two reasons.

First, Goldstone is a foreigner and uses foreign words and phrases. For example, if he refers to the "bonnet" of a car, Don Jr. knows he's not talking about a cute hat. He makes the translation automatically. Likewise, if he refers to the Crown prosecutor, that's translated into "Yuri Chaika".

Second, Goldstone referred to two different people in the email -- the "Crown prosecutor" who had access to "some official documents and information" and "the Russian government attorney" who would be bringing the documents to the meeting. Right?

Now you're trying to tell me this was the same person? Give me a break.

So what. It isn't illegal or immoral. What is your point?

Conspiring with a foreign government to influence a U.S. Presidential election isn't illegal or immoral?

If Hillary did that I'm sure you'd feel differently.

Donald Jr. did not set up the meeting. Goldstone set up the meeting. Donald Jr. agreed to take the meeting proposed by Goldstone.

Goldstone proposed the meeting. Don Jr. set the location, date, and time.

onspiring with a foreign government to influence a U.S. Presidential election isn't illegal or immoral?

Someone leaking something to someone is not conspiring with a foreign government.

Congress is forbidden from making ANY law regarding freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter what I would think of Hillary. The law is the law.

Someone leaking something to someone is not conspiring with a foreign government.

I think you mean, "Someone leaking something to someone is not something with a something-something."

There. NOW I agree with you 100%. Isn't that great what we can accomplish together? We've just changed the world with our cutting-edge argument.

A) That was after the meeting and B) Don Jr. didn't know that.

Once again, for the thick-headed, my point was that Don Jr. set up the meeting believing that something entirely more nefarious was going on.

You do not know what Don Jr. knew, even if you imagine that you do.

Once again, for the thick headed, there is no such thing as a crown prosecutor in Russia, and there is no chance that Don Jr. thought he met with the head of the judicial branch of Russia.

Something nefarious was going on. The Dems were manufacturing a bogus meeting at Trump Plaza to use as justification to surveil Trump Tower for political purposes.

What was Velnitskaya doing in the country without a visa, and perhaps with only an expired parole?

"Da bitch set him up!"

And then kept the whole thing secret for a year? Why was that?

He makes the translation automatically. Likewise, if he refers to the Crown prosecutor, that's translated into "Yuri Chaika".

You said Goldstone was Australian and that's why he would naturally assume Crown prosecutor referred to head man. As I pointed out, a crown prosecutor in Australia is not the head man, and is not a government servant. A natural translation would be low level prosecutor, a non-government employee.

The most natural interpretation is that Goldstone did not know shit, he was just making up a story to get a meeting taken with a Russian lawyer. The only thing wanted was the fact of the meeting taking place. The meeting was not publicly revealed for a year. The fact that said meeting took place was wanted for some other purpose.

He is a civilian attorney retained/appointed by the government to prosecute cases. The Attorney General of Australia is the head man.

Goldstone told the WSJ that by Crown prosecutor, he meant Veselnitskaya. That is who Goldstone said he meant, and Veselnitskaya much more closely fits the description of an Australian crown prosecutor than Chaika. She worked in the prosecutor's office, but not as an in-court litigator.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/12/who-is-natalia-veselnitskaya-low-level-lawyer-or-kremlin-power-broker

Goldstone told the Wall Street Journal his reference to the “crown prosecutor” meant Veselnitskaya

[misterwhite #26] But he was Australian, so it would be natural for him to refer to the top guy as the "Crown prosecutor".

Ok, I went along with your joke last time. Rob Goldstone is really English, and claimed to have run PR for Michael Jackson's Australian tour did not change him into an Australian. However, a crown prosecutor is not the head man in England either. There is the Attorney General for England and Wales at the top, then the Director of Public Prosecutions who oversees crown prosecutors and advocates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service

Crown prosecutors are prosecutors like Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, HJank Goldberg and Cheri Lewis. Crown prosecutors are not high level officials in England or Australia, and they do not exist in Russia. In England they do not even present cases in court; that is reserved for the Crown advocates.

"Crown Prosecutors (also known as reviewing lawyers) provide advice to investigators and take charging decisions; Crown Advocates present prosecution cases in court; Associate Prosecutors represent the CPS in cases with guilty pleas in the magistrates’ courts; and paralegals/casework assistants provide clerical support and help with progressing cases."

As an Englishman, Goldstone would naturally translate a crown prosecutor to a lawyer working on the bottom rung of the prosecution system, so low she does not even get to do trial work.

Do try to learn more than boot and bonnet old chap. I lived in the UK for five years and got married there. Here's one. After a big meal, you leave a restaurant with your significant other and she remarks that she is starving. Whatever did she mean?

Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime. As I argued Wednesday, though, reading “thing of value” to include such politically damaging information would outlaw a broad range of constitutionally protected opposition research. Such a reading would therefore make the statute unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment; the statute must therefore be read to avoid such an unconstitutional result, by interpreting “thing of value” to exclude such information. Even if a narrower statute — for instance, one focused on speech by foreign governments and not just by foreign nationals — could forbid such communications (and I doubt that it can), this statute cannot be constitutionally read to do so.

But, thinking further about the case, I think there’s still more reason to reject the broad reading of “thing of value.”

1. First, the same statute bans not just foreigners’ “contributions” directly to campaigns, but also “expenditure[s]” of money or “thing[s] of value” by foreigners. Indeed, when it comes to foreigners spending money to buy ads, print leaflets and the like, that equation of contributions and expenditures is well settled: Foreigners can neither contribute money to a candidate nor spend their money to support or oppose a candidate.

And “expenditure” is defined to mean “any purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office” (emphasis added). There’s that phrase “thing of value” again — if “thing of value” for the purposes of the contribution ban includes giving valuable damaging political information to a campaign, then “anything of value” for purposes of the expenditure ban includes giving such information to anyone else, so long as the gift is intended to influence a federal election.

So, imagine that a foreigner — say, a Turkish businessman — thinks that President Trump did something bad (say, in building a Trump hotel in Turkey). Maybe the bad thing was criminal but not something the Turkish government wants to prosecute, or maybe it was just unsavory even if not criminal. In any case, the Turk assembles the evidence. It’s important evidence, which would be valuable for American voters to consider.

Under the “information as thing of value” theory, it would be a crime for the Turk to give the information to the Trump campaign, since that would be an illegal contribution. (That’s the very premise of the argument against Trump Jr. that I’m discussing.)

So instead, he decides to give it to the New York Times, hoping the Times writes about this and gives Trump the comeuppance that (in the Turkish businessman’s mind) Trump deserves. Yet that, too, is a crime (again, accepting the thing-of-value theory): The gift of the “thing of value” to the New York Times, done, “for the purpose of influencing [an] election for Federal office” is itself an illegal expenditure.

2. But wait: This doesn’t just risk criminal punishment for the foreign businessman. What if a New York Times reporter is approached by the Turk, who wants to set up a meeting, and the reporter says, “if it’s what you say I love it”? Then, by the same logic being applied to Trump Jr.’s response, that reporter is committing the crime of soliciting the illegal expenditure — he’s encouraging the businessman to illegally give a gift of something of value (information).

It’s possible that the reporter could avoid criminality by insisting on paying money for the information (which presumably would have to be the market value of the information, however one calculates this). That would presumably make the transfer not a gift and thus not an expenditure. But checkbook journalism is usually frowned on — yet the no-gifts-of-information reading of the statute would actually require such checkbook journalism.

There is a media exception to the ban on expenditures; that provision defines “any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication” as being not an “expenditure” (even though money is spent to publish such material). But, as I read it, that frees media outlets (even foreign-owned ones) to spend their money in speaking about candidates and frees domestic corporate-owned media outlets to speak to candidates about coverage (which might otherwise be an illegal corporate-coordinated expenditure). The media exception doesn’t let media outlets solicit “expenditures” by third parties.

3. Relatedly, say that a New York Times reporter calls highly placed people he knows in a foreign government and asks them to pass along any files they have on an American political candidate, assuming they can do so without violating any obligations to their own government. (Say, for instance, that the candidate had been an ambassador, or a secretary of state, and dealt extensively with foreign officials; and the foreign government is willing to report on the candidate’s performance.) That, too, would be soliciting the criminal gift of a thing of value (again, accepting the information-about- candidate-as-thing-of-value theory), and thus itself a crime.

4. Now let’s turn from foreigners to corporations. Though Citizens United held that corporations are free to make independent expenditures, corporations remain barred from making contributions to federal political candidates. And that prohibition applies — you guessed it — to “anything of value.” That means that if the Clinton campaign staff heard that some corporation had assembled information that showed misconduct on Trump’s part, and was willing to share it (maybe the corporation was involved in a business relationship gone sour), the staff would be committing a crime by asking for the information: It would be illegally soliciting an illegal campaign contribution of valuable information.

Again, perhaps I’m wrong in my reading of the statutes; please do let me know if that’s so. But as I see it, the implications of viewing politically damaging information about a candidate as a “thing of value” regulated by federal campaign finance laws would be extremely broad. Such a reading would end up suppressing a wide range of speech, not just to and by campaigns, but also speech by foreigners to American media outlets or advocacy groups.

It would certainly not be limited to solicitation of hacked material from foreign governments (since, again, there’s no evidence that Trump Jr. thought this material was hacked). It wouldn’t even be limited to solicitation of any material from foreign governments, since the statute applies equally to all foreigners (except those who are also U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents). As I noted, it wouldn’t be limited to solicitation of material by campaigns. If read this way, the statute would be unconstitutionally overbroad — so, as a legal matter, the statute ought to be read as not covering such distribution or solicitation of damaging information about a candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/14/the- strikingly-broad-consequences-of-the-argument-that-donald-trump-jr-broke- the-law-by-expressing-interest-in-russian-dirt-on-hillary-clinton/? utm_term=.118c35423730

You do not know what Don Jr. knew, even if you imagine that you do.

He knew what was in the emails, and that's what he acted on.

Therefore, when someone offered the unspecified information to Trump Jr., saying it was “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” and Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it,” Trump Jr. was soliciting the commission of a crime — the crime of a foreign national making a contribution of a thing of value in connection with a federal election — and such solicitation was itself a crime.

Receiving stolen information is not a crime unless the theft is commissioned. Just about all of Wikileaks information was stolen by somebody. The NYT publication of the Pentagon Papers was lawful.

Donald Trump Jr. did not solicit
the wrongful obtainment of any real or imaginary document. He did not solicit
anyone to deliver any document. He said he would accept one or more documents which were already offered. There was no request by Donald Jr. That is not solicitation.

The lawsuit COMPLAINT filed by Common Cause may be viewed here.

At 5, ¶16

16. The Commission has defined “to solicit” by regulation to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.” 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m); see also 11 C.F.R. § 11 0.20(a)(6) (for the purposes of the prohibition of solicitation of foreign national contributions, solicit has the same meaning as in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m)).

The regulation elaborates: A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. Id.

At 6, ¶¶ 19-22:

19. Federal law prohibits any person from soliciting a contribution from a foreign national. 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2), 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

20. Donald Trump Jr. knowingly met with a foreign national, Natalia Veselnitskaya, for the purpose of soliciting a “contribution” as defined at 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i) (“anything of value ... for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office”) to his father’s presidential campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. — namely damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

21. Donald Trump Jr. was an agent of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. with authority to solicit contributions on behalf of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and was doing so in his meeting with Ms. Veselnitskaya, as evidenced by the fact that he brought then-campaign chairman Paul J. Manafort to the meeting, which took place in the same building where Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. headquarters was and is located.

22. Therefore, based on published reports, there is reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Donald Trump Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

Donald Jr. did not agree to the meeting for the purpose of soliciting a contribution. He agreed to the meeting for the purpose of receiving something of unknown content that was being offered. Donald Jr. neither solicited nor received anything at the meeting. Paul Manafort being at a meeting does not show solicitation by Donald Jr. None of this adds up to evidence that Donald Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national.

This is little more than a press release in the form of a legal complaint.

Receiving official documents indicating Hillary Clinton had engaged in criminal misconduct would not be a crime. Passively agreeing to receive something freely and unconditionally offered is not solicitation.

The question is not one of solicitation but of unlawful receiving of a prohibited campaign donation.

See:

http://www.newsweek.com/why-donald-jrs-russia-meeting-was-bad-may-not-have-been-illegal-636992

Although some outstanding lawyers contend otherwise, I don’t think federal campaign finance law prohibits what Trump Jr. did.

If it did, then the Clinton campaign would also have broken the law had it sought information from non-U.S. nationals to investigate the claim that Trump Tower was built with undocumented workers. That interpretation of the law would raise very serious concerns concerning the free flow of political information.

The better view is that meeting with a foreign national to obtain information on a rival doesn’t generally violate federal campaign finance law, at least not without more. A different analysis should apply when items with a demonstrable monetary value are given or sought, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here given the vague description of the information offered to Trump Jr.

http://ethics.ks.gov/CFAForms/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.html

Question: What is an in-kind contribution?
Answer: An in-kind contribution is not a monetary donation, but something of value donated to a campaign or committee which has been paid for by another person. An example of an in-kind contribution would be a candidate who pays for a newspaper ad with personal funds or pays his or her filing fee with personal funds. If these examples were monetary donations, the candidate would have placed money into the campaign bank account and written a campaign check to the newspaper for the ad and the Secretary of State or county election officer for the filing fee. Because personal funds were used to make these expenditures, they are considered in-kind contributions from the candidate. Other examples of in-kind contributions are postage stamps donated by a friend, a discount on a printing order from a printing company for campaign brochures, or food and beverages paid for by someone else for a fundraiser held on the candidate’s behalf.

Receiving dirt on the other candidate is not an in-kind donation.

"Receiving stolen information is not a crime unless the theft is commissioned."

Is that what Don Jr.'s being accused of? Receiving stolen information? Who came up with that garbage?

I thought he he was being accused of attempting to conspire with a foreign power to influence a U.S. Presidential election.

Thanks to the leftist loons who are found in the damned Democrat and the complicit Repulicrat Parties, this nation is in serious trouble. The destruction of our nation is abetted by the worthless news media.

I smell a revolution brewing.

I thought he he was being accused of attempting to conspire with a foreign power to influence a U.S. Presidential election.

What law would that be that you are referring to.

No you just pulled it out of your ass.

What law would that be that you are referring to.

"No person shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation"
-- 11 CFR 110.20(g)

A contribution can be "anything of value" including negative information about a political opponent.

You're a liar or stupid. The law specifically says the opposite on information. Freedom of speech you anti American weirdo.

11 CFR 110.20(g)

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations. You quoted an FEC regulation, not a law.

Criminal laws are in 18 U.S.C.

Is that what Don Jr.'s being accused of? Receiving stolen information? Who came up with that garbage?

I thought he he was being accused of attempting to conspire with a foreign power to influence a U.S. Presidential election.

I quoted from the COMPLAINT what he is accused of:

22. Therefore, based on published reports, there is reason to believe that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Donald Trump Jr. knowingly solicited a contribution from a foreign national in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(g).

Trump Jr. did not solicit anything.

Not every violation of law is a crime. The citation of law is to election law, not a criminal statute. The citation to CFR relates FEC regulations, not law.

2015 US Code
Title 52 - Voting and Elections (Sections 10101 - 30146)
Subtitle III - Federal Campaign Finance (Sections 30101 - 30146)
Chapter 301 - Federal Election Campaigns (Sections 30101 - 30146)
Subchapter I - Disclosure of Federal Campaign Funds (Sections 30101 - 30126)
Sec. 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals